sburke Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Chops said: Where do you want the saved game files sent? Just give me a link i can download from. Dropbox, Box, whatever you use for file sharing. As to the actual item, I would get to much into trying to figure it out. Between corner movement, TAC AI reaction to Arty, Teams spreading out more when moving etc BF has changed a lot relative to the TAC AI. The more examples we can provide Charles the better the odds are he'll figure out what it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 I encountered the same getting stuck at hedges bug on several occasions. Sometimes when a squads move waypoint is plotted at a hedge AS, both teams as part of the squad (if it´s composed of 2 teams) will then move into ONE AS at the hedge and not into 2 seperate ones. When plotting a follow up waypoint away from the hedge, parts of the squad (mostly 2-3 individual soldiers) remain stuck at the hedge, while the remaining soldiers make it to the new waypoint, which then gets deleted automatically. The end situation then is that parts of the squad are in the new AS with the stragglers remaining at the hedge. The stragglers are not from the same team and are randomnly taken from available teams. My guess is that the new spacing routines are getting into trouble when multi team infantry is moved into a parted AS (fence, hedge, bocage). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 movement script in editor is propably puted to max assault and this cause this behave. ai units turn assault command on under fire to slow and they dont give upp that command before new AI move script is activated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 On 2016-12-31 at 4:53 PM, snarre said: movement script in editor is propably puted to max assault and this cause this behave. ai units turn assault command on under fire to slow and they dont give upp that command before new AI move script is activated. Changing some of the advance and quick AI-orders to dash have greately reduced the seaking tendencies of the AI. In the scenario i'm currently working on the dash command fits pretty well in most cercomstances as the individual AI-groups will not need to provide coverfire for the advancing units. Different AI-Groups will take turns bounding forward while other provide suppresion/cover fire together with the armour. The scenario is back on track...after some tweaking and experementing the russian attack is ones again making good ground ... Snarre, thanks for your input ! /RepsolCBR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 it was firs thing what get on my mind what can cause this. sou np 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 I don't know about AI orders and have never dabbled in scenario design, but does this mean that 4.0 may have broken many pre-4.0 scenarios? I hope someone can confirm that this is not the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 On 12/24/2016 at 5:54 PM, Firehead said: No experience with CMBN 4.0, but CMBS my infantry felt much more realistic. Moving smarter, better spacing, smarter reaction to contact. May be a placebo, but they feel faster too. A quick or fast move felt like it yielded better results when I needed them to get somewhere. Seemed to better identify firing positions better as well. I feel as before they would take fire and before I could figure out what was going on, half a squad had been smoked. Super happy with 4.0 Ahh, the Six-Million Dollar Men :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Zaitzev Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 5 hours ago, Holman said: I don't know about AI orders and have never dabbled in scenario design, but does this mean that 4.0 may have broken many pre-4.0 scenarios? I hope someone can confirm that this is not the case. This exactly was my doubt! I'm thinking in buying it in the near future and would like to know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 I'm sorry, I don't understand the issue. Why would adding new commands break existing scenarios? They didn't take any commands away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 it dosent breik any scenarios if it not chance anything by some strange thing. Old scenarios tjust lag then this new posible way to script AI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, Thewood1 said: I'm sorry, I don't understand the issue. Why would adding new commands break existing scenarios? They didn't take any commands away. I might be misunderstanding some AI script issues, but haven't people been saying that the AI now goes into sneak and stays there for many turns? The solution (as suggested a few post above) might be to use Dash instead of Advance/Quick for the AI, but that doesn't help all the old scenarios where the movement orders originally in place will now result in AI units sneaking forever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Before everyone get's terrified of the update... Just now, Holman said: I might be misunderstanding some AI script issues, but haven't people been saying that the AI now goes into sneak and stays there for many turns? The solution (as suggested a few post above) might be to use Dash instead of Advance/Quick for the AI, but that doesn't help all the old scenarios where the movement orders originally in place will now result in AI units sneaking forever. This is one guys oppinion (so far...) Namely me... The situation might not actually be so bad but that has been my impression so far... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 This is how stupid stuff starts on the internet. One guy says he might see a problem and now you have people saying they won't buy until iys fixed. How anything gets sold on the internet is amazing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) And all of it over a $10 upgrade. At minimum wage in the US, you've probably spent more time agonizing over the purchase than it cost. Edited January 2, 2017 by Thewood1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Holman said: I might be misunderstanding some AI script issues, but haven't people been saying that the AI now goes into sneak and stays there for many turns? The solution (as suggested a few post above) might be to use Dash instead of Advance/Quick for the AI, but that doesn't help all the old scenarios where the movement orders originally in place will now result in AI units sneaking forever. Yeah, I think this may be one of my major concerns...With this New AI Behavior will see Scenarios taking different or unrealistic outcomes, and may also affect QB's as well (since this New AI Behavior is tied into both). I would have to let Scenario Designers go into each Scenario to make any appropriate changes they think necessary to give it a more realistic outcome, which would take a long time...I for one won't do it, because then I would know everything about that Scenario ruining the Surprise/FOW factor. Yeah, I will just wait till the Dust Settles as, MOS, has mentioned before purchasing this 4.0 Upgrade. Edited January 2, 2017 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, Thewood1 said: I'm sorry, I don't understand the issue. Why would adding new commands break existing scenarios? They didn't take any commands away. What could affect older scenarios is the fact that they have changed the whole way that infantry ( and armour ) acts with regards to the orders they have been given. Thats the way it seems to me anyway but i'm not connected to BFC in any way so I might be wrong about this... Some things i have noticed while working on my current scenario is this.... After i updated to V4 the infantry have a much higher chans to start sneaking compared to how the same scenario played out in the previous version. While playtesting the V3 version the russian AI attacker changed their orders to sneak very rarely but after the update they change to sneak alot.... A significant difference... Also both Infantry and Armour move through the different waypoints at a higher pace...There is no more autostopping at the waypoints. They move strait through to the next one unless the desiger has restricted this with a Before/after command. These things combined might make the timing of older scenarios not work perfectly... The more experienced and skilled scenariodesigners might have been able to design them in such a way that they will alow for this but many of the Community scenarios will most likely be affected in some way i belive.... As a player you might not notice this all that much though....hopefully. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, Thewood1 said: And all of it over a $10 upgrade. At minimum wage in the US, you've probably spent more time agonizing over the purchase than it cost. Guess what...You will be agonizing over it, forever possibly, if you get an Upgrade your not happy with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, Thewood1 said: And all of it over a $10 upgrade. At minimum wage in the US, you've probably spent more time agonizing over the purchase than it cost. Well, I've already bought all of the upgrades, and I trust that (if there's a problem) BTS will fix it. What I'm wondering is how much of a problem there is in the first place. Does the AI really sneak too much, and does it indeed break older scenarios? I haven't been able to test enough to see proof one way or another. I'm wondering if some others have. This isn't panic or pessimism. It's discussion of the current state of things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Holman said: Well, I've already bought all of the upgrades, and I trust that (if there's a problem) BTS will fix it. What I'm wondering is how much of a problem there is in the first place. Does the AI really sneak too much, and does it indeed break older scenarios? I haven't been able to test enough to see proof one way or another. I'm wondering if some others have. This isn't panic or pessimism. It's discussion of the current state of things. Yes, and a Great Observation Point to be considered...+10 Edited January 2, 2017 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here. First we are talking two different issues. One is TAC AI behavior and something that may be causing teams to split. This may not actually be new. I have experienced something similar years ago in a PBEM and occasionally since. Is it that coincidentally it has happened more, is it new capabilities in the TAC AI that might be causing an issue? Don't know, that is why we need saves for Charles to look at. We can theorize until the cows come home, but even if we guess right it won't get attention without concrete examples. (Fortunately I have a few now and am submitting them). Second is TAC AI behavior with AI commands in the editor. I can't speak to that nor even know if it has actually changed. From reading above it sounds more like it hasn't. Snarre seems to have a clearer idea of what happens given certain commands in the editor. Last item - if you are concerned about an upgrade install the new version in a different install. Keep a CM3.0 folder and a 4.0 folder if you are that worried. Personally I am with Holman. BF will fix it IF there is a problem and IF we provide some concrete examples. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Just now, sburke said: Second is TAC AI behavior with AI commands in the editor. I can't speak to that nor even know if it has actually changed. From reading above it sounds more like it hasn't. Snarre seems to have a clearer idea of what happens given certain commands in the editor. I'm sorry...but no. This behaviour is new. It has to be...(i Think...uurf, urrf ) It has nothing to do with using different commands in the AI-orders. As i mentioned above i have been working on a scenario for a couple of weeks now and just prior to the release of V4 i had the AI-programming finished and playtested numorous times (atleast 5+) in V3. I tested the scenario both in elite and scenario editor mode. Using the scenario editor mode i keept a close eye on the performance and conditions of the AI-troops and very rarely noticed any AI-troops changing their orders to sneaking. Immidiatelly after the release of V4 i did additional testing in scenario editor mode of the exact same scenario and my first reaction was... - what is this !?!? - The majority of the engagements/firefights resulted in a fairly large part of the AI-Group units changing their orders to sneaking....Often only after taking very light fire. The difference is VERY notable. I'm not making this up... When testing this initially both versions (V3 and V4) had exactelly the same commands in the AI-orders. I tested the exactelly same scenario. I changed nothing between V3 and V4. But still the first thing i noticed when firering up V4 was the sneaking tendencies. To try and limit these sneaking moves i have since changed some of the AI-order commands in V4 to dash as this reduces the sneaking chans significantelly. This can't possible be something scenario specific to my scenario. It has to be reproducable by doing a simple scenario and having some Groups of AI-troops doing some simple advancing under fire. If more people don't notice the difference between V3 and V4 i'd be supprised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Just now, sburke said: Last item - if you are concerned about an upgrade install the new version in a different install. Keep a CM3.0 folder and a 4.0 folder if you are that worried. Personally I am with Holman. BF will fix it IF there is a problem and IF we provide some concrete examples. this is a good idea and yes.... i also Thinks that the problem will be fixed if there is indeed an identified problem. It might not be so much a problem as a significant difference to the previous version though... Hopefully more people will comment on their experiences....(the difference is most notable when playing the scenarios in scenario editor mode...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 23 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said: I'm sorry...but no. This behaviour is new. It has to be...(i Think...uurf, urrf ) well you haven't provided me a single save yet so . . . . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 For me it´s also a bit early to draw any conclusions. I had two different CTD situations in a self made mission started with 3.x and both were obvisouly related to reinforcement insertion. I fiddled a bit with deployments (a big bunch of reinforcements likely were inserted in too tight a space) and removed reinforcement state for 3 mortar units entirely. This did the trick thus far, but how can I be sure? I´m still running WinXP, which is not actively supported anymore and my hardware could also see some upgrading. But V4 runs good enough so that I purchased CMFB few days after the CMBN upgrade. From observing the scripted AI in author mode I can not find any real game breaking behaviors thus far. The AI appears at times more aggressive and at times more cautious, making overall outcomes more variable. There´s some more sneaking for sure, but it happens if units are sufficiently suppressed with all morale or experience type units, as well as in any non assault/max assault modes. Could be that scenario makers need investing more time now to get the desired balance through play testing and adjust few parameters in the battle plans. To me the best opportunity to keep learning. Also need to test if some the combat stance modes (ambush, hide, cautious...) have a more pronounced effect on AI order execution now. The AI´s still kinda obsessed from enemy pillboxes. IE ambush (fixed circular covererd arc) mode causes this mode to be canceled automatically when a pillbox comes into sight and at range (3-400m for small arms). Generally I do not want the AI engage pillboxes at every opportunity. One somewhat disturbing factor is the large influence sphere for suppression above and below infantry IMO. Lots of lead flying several meters overhead is as much suppressive as lead hitting the ground very close to a unit. Same for infantry in multy story buildings. Lead hitting the ground in front of a building could still heavily suppress infantry in a second story. That was the case in V3 already. I definitely need doing more test runs, but I find it rather positive and exiting that AI infantry combat in V4.0 is even less predictable and more dynamic than before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 37 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said: This can't possible be something scenario specific to my scenario. It has to be reproducable by doing a simple scenario and having some Groups of AI-troops doing some simple advancing under fire. If more people don't notice the difference between V3 and V4 i'd be supprised. I have been working myself over Christmas on a small scenario, and that "sneaking" behaviour happens to me when the AI is trying to comply with a Max Assault order under fire over open terrain. That's the behaviour I remember getting since 2.0, perhaps. I'd advise to leave your units a while in the "jump off" position, with "Active" stance and with Facing set towards the enemy, so they have time to spot, engage and suppress the enemy. Now you can also have a "fire support element" with an area fire order, just watch out the timing of it to avoid burning through ammo, since the AI doesn’t assess the situation to determine whether or not to stop firing. 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.