US soldiers act like cowards ingame

[Wiggum15]

Yes it would be better, imagine one squad dashes over a street, comes under fire and stops in the middle of the street after 10sec canceling the WP.

they will have to survive 50sec in this death trap even if suppression goes down.

If the WP would just be on Hold and would be resumed after the volume of fire get less or the enemy has to reload his mg they could survive.

[Battlefront.com]

The TacAI in Black Sea is the same TacAI in all CM games. And by "same" I mean exactly the same. It is also the same for all nations. We have never, and will never, produce nation specific TacAI.

What this means is that a US unit with x, y, and z stats has the same chance of behavior as a similar sized/armed unit with identical x, y, and z stats in the identical situation. Due to random variability the result might not be the same, but from the simulation's point of view they are identical.

People should also not get too focused on any one specific event and presume that a hand selected solution for it is something that has validity everywhere all the time. What works for one situation doesn't work for others. That is the inherent issue with AI in general, but especially AI that governs complex split second behaviors under extreme circumstances.

Is the TacAI perfect? Certainly not. But we've been honing it for 8 years now and we're very confident that there isn't some obvious flaw with it. Especially because in real life soldiers make bad decisions all the time. Even experienced ones with great amounts of training.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Often when the AI 'does bad things' it tends to be the result of their commander (me, usually) marching them straight into an untenable position. They're strolling through the middle of an open field when a nearby HMG opens up on them. The question should be less 'What should they do next?' and more 'Why were they walking in the middle of an open field?'

[sburke]

Often when the AI 'does bad things' it tends to be the result of their commander (me, usually) marching them straight into an untenable position. They're strolling through the middle of an open field when a nearby HMG opens up on them. The question should be less 'What should they do next?' and more 'Why were they walking in the middle of an open field?'

They were scouts, and they uncovered the hidden HMG, good job boys! 

[Zveroboy1]

Yes for instance in that last vid, if the Bradley had stayed on the road for one more minute to cover the deployment of the squad instead of wandering away in that field on a wild goose chase it could have pumped that building on the hill full of lead to protect the dismounts. This is probably what these guys were doing, screaming themselves hoarse to call the Bradley back.

[speedyglides]

Just watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJd46D90U20#t=13m07s

 

A US team is ordered to get out of a IFV and into a building, they get out and take fire from the north.

Instead of running the last few meters into the building they get pinned and stop still on the road...in perfect LOS of the enemy fire.

They stay there and if the player did not order them again into the building they would most likely died there.

 

Thats the behavior thats so annoying and is responsible for at least 50% of my casualties, instead of

a ) just follow the order for 2sec more and make it into the building or

b ) hit the ground and change the Quick waypoint into slow and crawl into cover

 

...they drop to the ground in the most stupid and deadliest spot and stay there awaiting death !

 

Anyway it may be no specific US problem.

 

 

I recommend you to read "Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battlefield Command" from S.L.A. Marshall. It is very interesting to read to better know reactions of soliders to contact with the enemy and being under fire. It has some real description of battles and encounters and what soldiers did that will challenge your logic.

Edited March 2, 2015 by speedyglides

[The_Capt]

Yes, I am posting on the outer board. I always promise myself it will be the last time.

You know that scene in Zero Dark Thirty when they are in the chopper going to clip OBL? And the lead Sgt (whatever) asks "who here has been in a chopper crash" and all the hands begrudgingly go up? That is pretty much the response you would get in the CM Beta forum if you asked "who here has been in a firefight".

Do we all agree on the issue at hand? No,been a debate for about 15 years. But here is one thing most will agree on; nobody "does" what another someone staring from the sky think one should do in a fire fight. One could argue the name of the entire game is to position yourself so that the enemy and not you is reacting to fire.

Paraphrasing Rommel "if they hit the beach we are in trouble". Same can be said for combat in general. If your little guys are caught in any other position other than cover when the steel starts flying you are in real trouble...so avoid it. It isn't AI it is crappy tactics (in game and in RL). Guys dismount out of a IFV into an open street directly into fire...they are more justified in questioning the commanders "AI" than we are of theirs. I could go on about "when someone gets hit" but no need to really dig that up except to say again no real way to predict.

Last point, take a look at history and casualty rates of any given action. Then compare to a CM body count, CM's will be much, much higher. Why? Because in RL soldiers (even US) are much less likely to follow amateur and sucidal orders...you know, like the ones we give every game.

Want perfect control? Go play chess.

[sburke]

That is pretty much the response you would get in the CM Beta forum if you asked "who here has been in a firefight".

Oh I thought you said did you watch Firefly. Sorry (puts hand down)

[Bahger]

One could argue the name of the entire game is to position yourself so that the enemy and not you is reacting to fire.

I would argue that this makes such perfect sense that I am now going to find, and learn from, every other post that The_Capt has reluctantly made in an "outer board".

[Frankster65]

Yes, I am posting on the outer board. I always promise myself it will be the last time.

You know that scene in Zero Dark Thirty when they are in the chopper going to clip OBL? And the lead Sgt (whatever) asks "who here has been in a chopper crash" and all the hands begrudgingly go up? That is pretty much the response you would get in the CM Beta forum if you asked "who here has been in a firefight".

Do we all agree on the issue at hand? No,been a debate for about 15 years. But here is one thing most will agree on; nobody "does" what another someone staring from the sky think one should do in a fire fight. One could argue the name of the entire game is to position yourself so that the enemy and not you is reacting to fire.

Paraphrasing Rommel "if they hit the beach we are in trouble". Same can be said for combat in general. If your little guys are caught in any other position other than cover when the steel starts flying you are in real trouble...so avoid it. It isn't AI it is crappy tactics (in game and in RL). Guys dismount out of a IFV into an open street directly into fire...they are more justified in questioning the commanders "AI" than we are of theirs. I could go on about "when someone gets hit" but no need to really dig that up except to say again no real way to predict.

Last point, take a look at history and casualty rates of any given action. Then compare to a CM body count, CM's will be much, much higher. Why? Because in RL soldiers (even US) are much less likely to follow amateur and sucidal orders...you know, like the ones we give every game.

Want perfect control? Go play chess.

 

Spot on! 

[The_Capt]

I would argue that this makes such perfect sense that I am now going to find, and learn from, every other post that The_Capt has reluctantly made in an "outer board".

Well thanks but I think you need to go into the archives for most of it. I am the old guy who has grown into the ship. If it wasn't for Bil H I would likely never wake up.

Before anyone gets riled by my response above, guys this is an old argument...we are talking CMx1 old. The AI is what it is, I have seen it totally implode and I have pixeltruppen who have brought me to near tears (big shout out to Sgt Hamilton and that SMG...promised I would do this..sob).

In the end that unexpected-ness that some hate is what in my opinion makes the game so realistic. Those little guys aren't cowards, they are just smarter than this fat old man sitting in his comfy chair.

Now go and spend their little digital lives wisely.

Edited March 2, 2015 by The_Capt

[Pablius]

Thanks for coming here to tell this things

 

Whatever the argument is or where each person stands, I very much prefer for devs and beta testers to share, to the extent it is possible without betraying trust of what it is said and done during the process of making a game

 

Good luck going to an EA forum and hear anything but silence from that side of the fence

 

And I sincerely hope I´ll never be able to raise my hand when someone ask if I have been in a firefight and remain completely ignorant about it

[womble]

I had a situation a turn or two ago where a Landser calmly put a single 7.92 round through the head of the gunner of a Crusader AA tank that was bearing down on him. He then tried to peg it, but didn't get into cover before the TC climbed into the gunner's chair and ripped the poor Soldat to bits with twin autocannon. If he'd stayed snakey in the long grass, the tank wouldn't have seen him, but would have seen his moving team mates. One of them got away. Iron Cross for the shooter.

[agusto]

You know that scene in Zero Dark Thirty when they are in the chopper going to clip OBL? And the lead Sgt (whatever) asks "who here has been in a chopper crash" and all the hands begrudgingly go up? That is pretty much the response you would get in the CM Beta forum if you asked "who here has been in a firefight".

 

And what do the beta guys say about the behaviour of the infantry Tac AI when it comes under fire? Luckily i have never had the "pleasure" to be in a fire fight, but i ve watched a lot of combat footage recorded by US soldiers wearing helmet cams, and getting to the ground when bullets start flying is almost always the first thing they do. The second thing is to start firing like crazy into the direction the shots came from.

 

Paraphrasing Rommel "if they hit the beach we are in trouble". Same can be said for combat in general. If your little guys are caught in any other position other than cover when the steel starts flying you are in real trouble...so avoid it. It isn't AI it is crappy tactics (in game and in RL). Guys dismount out of a IFV into an open street directly into fire...they are more justified in questioning the commanders "AI" than we are of theirs

 

I thought about posting that too. It looks cool in CM to disembark under fire, but you would never do that IRL unless you absolutely have to (like the guys in the landing boats on Omaha Beach). I almost never get my guys killed when disembarking them from their IFVs, the trick is just to do it while behind cover.

 

Want perfect control? Go play chess.

 

Chess is the original turn based war game. I used to play Chess in a league for several years and since i stopped CM has always been sort of a substitute for that.

Edited March 3, 2015 by agusto

[womble]

And what do the beta guys say about the behaviour of the infantry Tac AI when it comes under fire?

The implication is that they're not up in arms about it like our OP in this thread.

[The_Capt]

The implication is that they're not up in arms about it like our OP in this thread.

Well I guess I opened my big gob on this one so I'll respond. I do not presume to be the voice of the Beta team and am in no way official spokesperson for BFC (and no Steve did not demand I state this).

That out of the way, I will say there is debate, not as heated as it is here. Opinions are expressed on both sides of the issue. I for one line to take a longer view and adapt in-game tactics as reqr and do not believe a major tweak is reqr. Again if a tweak were to happen I am confident it will be balanced and probably minor.

It is safe to say no one seems to think "It's broken!!". I will give any Beta wanna-bees out there a hint; a mature balanced open-minded attitude is definitely a good thing to develop. Also if you do want to make a point, a careful well-developed repeatable test approach will get much farther than yelling into the mic until it squeals. In the end your opinion is only one of many that has to be balanced, try and remember it and all will be well. Now go in peace etc etc...

[Bahger]

Well the OP's use of the word "coward" in his header and his confrontational style of expressing his views on the issue have tended to skew the debate, forcing people to respond defensively. My non-defensive response, FWIW, is that most of the anomalous infantry AI behavior I have come across stems from task-saturation resulting often, but not always, from questionable judgements made by the player in how, and in what circumstances, he has chosen to deploy said infantry. Having said that, there are certain circumstances in which the tac AI benefits from hand-holding; it is to the game's credit that these instances are a lot less numerous than they used to be.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Bahger

[womble]

...there are certain circumstances in which the tac AI benefits from hand-holding; it is to the game's credit that these instances are a lot less numerous than they used to be.

It's also worth pointing out that the tool exists to do that handholding, up to the point of losing control of the element entirely, in the shape of the "Evade" command.