4.0 Infantry AI

[user1000]

3 minutes ago, Cobetco said:

well almost a whole line, there was that one guy who was backwards.... probably mooning the Germans. But there is always one guy without fail in any real life situation who doesn't get it (its usually me) so i'll give the 4.0 AI as pass on that.

He was watching for enemy armor at the rear and flanks, he usually does that. M9A1 rifle grenade guy.

[slysniper]

The problem with men getting detached or separated from their squad has always been there, BF has never really fixed it. I bet you that the only reason it has shown up again more ugly than ever is because they have enlarged the area the unit spreads out as in v4.0. So with the added distance between men, it is likely causing this bug to happen more often.

As for the other complaint, again Bf tweeked the infantry reaction to get down and take cover faster than they once did, why, because you all complained that they did not react to incoming fire correctly. So now they drop and crawl because of enemy fire and you complain about that. They can never win with you guys.

 

Version 4.0 My impressions. I have played a few old scenarios with the new update to see what differences I notice. Yes does it impact the game how it plays. Hell Yes.

What is the point in a change if the scenarios were not impacted, that would not be a change would it.

Anyway, The game play has improved as to the AI and just in general in how units operate.

It did not take me long to see a man actually use a corner of a building for cover and sneak around it to take a shot with a bazooka to take out a tank . There is some nice added minor features as to information to show us the players what is happening and in general the game play continues to Improve.

Good job, BF

 

Lets get done with engine tweeking and lets get back to kicking out units and different time frames of the war. Way too much time has been spent on these additions and nothing released for three newest games as to new units and time frames.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by slysniper

[Cobetco]

12 hours ago, user1000 said:

He was watching for enemy armor at the rear and flanks, he usually does that. M9A1 rifle grenade guy.

you know I was being silly =p, that being said, because of your comment I did check out my rifle grenade guys today in a quick battle, and wow props to BF for marking the M1 rifle grenade a strait pull. so many other devs would have left it semi auto. I never noticed that until now.

[A Canadian Cat]

12 hours ago, slysniper said:

The problem with men getting detached or separated from their squad has always been there, BF has never really fixed it. I bet you that the only reason it has shown up again more ugly than ever is because they have enlarged the area the unit spreads out as in v4.0. So with the added distance between men, it is likely causing this bug to happen more often.

Yeah there is so much going on with path finding that there are really isn't *a* bug to fix. More like many edge cases that can trigger the bad behaviour. As we reported them in the past they were fixed but there was always the chance that new unknown combinations could trigger the problem again. In the 4.0 engine work there were tweaks made to the way infantry move. Clearly that exposed / introduced a few more cases where things go wokny. At any rate just like before if we hit them and report them with saves these annoying problems will get cleared up.

 

12 hours ago, slysniper said:

As for the other complaint, again Bf tweeked the infantry reaction to get down and take cover faster than they once did, why, because you all complained that they did not react to incoming fire correctly. So now they drop and crawl because of enemy fire and you complain about that. They can never win with you guys.

LOL yeah there is always something that needs fixing and always someone with the opposite opinion. Sometimes even the same person

 

12 hours ago, slysniper said:

It did not take me long to see a man actually use a corner of a building for cover and sneak around it to take a shot with a bazooka to take out a tank . There is some nice added minor features as to information to show us the players what is happening and in general the game play continues to Improve.

Good job, BF

That is a very cool feature. Except when the guy on the corner gets nailed - see above "they can never win with you guys" Just kidding we are all really happy with the peaking around the corner feature. Right.

 

12 hours ago, slysniper said:

Lets get done with engine tweeking and lets get back to kicking out units and different time frames of the war. Way too much time has been spent on these additions and nothing released for three newest games as to new units and time frames.

Queue the person with the opposite opinion Seriously though, I'm with you on where to focus next.

[StieliAlpha]

Eh, it's more a Tank question, but I'll try anyway: Does the "hull down" command in V4.0 work?

In an old scenario, started under V3.0, I had a JgPz IV a few meters behind a rail embankment. I thought, I'll be smart and tried the new "hull down" command to move the TD forward.

Unfortunately, It ended up flat ON the embankment instead of hull down. It scored a quick kill and received a quick hit at the same time.

[Cobetco]

1 hour ago, StieliAlpha said:

Eh, it's more a Tank question, but I'll try anyway: Does the "hull down" command in V4.0 work?

In an old scenario, started under V3.0, I had a JgPz IV a few meters behind a rail embankment. I thought, I'll be smart and tried the new "hull down" command to move the TD forward.

Unfortunately, It ended up flat ON the embankment instead of hull down. It scored a quick kill and received a quick hit at the same time.

it does work, but you have to give it a target to be hull down to. you do this with the target command. if no target is provided i think it just works like a normal move command, sadly this means the vehicle can't go hull down and provide suppressing fire on the same turn.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Cobetco

[akd]

5 minutes ago, Cobetco said:

it does work, but you have to give it a target to be hull down to. you do this with the target command. if no target is provided i think it just works like a normal move command, sadly this means the vehicle can't go hull down and provide suppressing fire on the same turn.

If you do not draw a target from the hull down waypoint, the waypoint itself is assumed to be the desired location you want the vehicle to stop when hull down to (or more specifically, when hull down to a tank-sized target at that location.)  If no hull down position is found along the way, the vehicle will indeed move to the waypoint and stop there.

[StieliAlpha]

14 hours ago, akd said:

If you do not draw a target from the hull down waypoint, the waypoint itself is assumed to be the desired location you want the vehicle to stop when hull down to (or more specifically, when hull down to a tank-sized target at that location.)  If no hull down position is found along the way, the vehicle will indeed move to the waypoint and stop there.

That's what I assumed.

My mistake obviously was to place the HD waypoint on the tracks. But nevertheless, I would have assumed that the TD find's a HD position on it's side of the embankment.

Is there an easy way to check that, before giving the order?

[akd]

If you placed your hull down waypoint on the tracks, then you instructed the vehicle to stop once it was hull down relative to a tank sitting on top of the tracks.  Since it was already presumably hull-up to this position and that did not change along the course of the path, the vehicle continued to the end of the hull down order because it never reached a position that triggered it to stop.

Remember: the AI cannot simply find a generic hull down position.  A good hull down position depends on inferring where the target will be, which is far beyond the AI in most circumstances.  Hull down is always relative to another point on the map, and you must tell the AI what point to use as a reference.  If you just give a hull down move order, the hull down waypoint is the reference point.  If you attach a target to the hull down waypoint, this target becomes the reference point.

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, akd said:

<Snip>  If you just give a hull down move order, the hull down waypoint is the reference point.  If you attach a target to the hull down waypoint, this target becomes the reference point.

Ahhh, that made the light bulb come on.  I read the 4.0 engine manual page 51 several times and came away with the wrong idea.  Basically Target the action spot the OpFor is in (the friendly tank is probably not going to have eyes on yet or they would already be shooting) from the Hull Down waypoint.       

[Michael Emrys]

56 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Basically Target the action spot the OpFor is in (the friendly tank is probably not going to have eyes on yet or they would already be shooting) from the Hull Down waypoint.

That sounds right. I've just started a QB in FB and will try it this way. BTW, how did you get a manual? I don't seem to have gotten one in the DL and the discs with a printed manual have not arrived yet.

Michael

[MOS:96B2P]

6 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

That sounds right. I've just started a QB in FB and will try it this way. BTW, how did you get a manual? I don't seem to have gotten one in the DL and the discs with a printed manual have not arrived yet.

Michael

The 4.0 engine manual came with the upgrade.  It automatically created a shortcut to the engine manual on my desktop.  It can also be found in the Battlefront folder.  I have a PC not a Mac but I would expect the downloads to be the same.  

[Michael Emrys]

4 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

The 4.0 engine manual came with the upgrade.  It automatically created a shortcut to the engine manual on my desktop.  It can also be found in the Battlefront folder.  I have a PC not a Mac but I would expect the downloads to be the same.

Hmmm. I went back and checked both folders of DLs and couldn't fine a manual in either one. I was having other problems getting the DLs and the manual just might not have made it across.

Michael

[PhilM]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Hmmm. I went back and checked both folders of DLs and couldn't fine a manual in either one. I was having other problems getting the DLs and the manual just might not have made it across.

Michael

Michael,

Have you checked in the "Documents" sub folder with the main title folder?

I chose the "add on" files for my v4 Mac upgrade bundle (rather than download the big Master Installer files) ... running these installs has put a "CM Engine Manual v4.00.pdf" file in the Documents folder for each of the titles.

These manuals contain a few intro pages of notes on the new v4.00 orders, etc ... as well as the more detailed content in the appropriate places in the manual.

[Michael Emrys]

 

1 hour ago, PhilM said:

Have you checked in the "Documents" sub folder with the main title folder?

My, my, talk bout the squeaky wheel getting the grease...a little while ago a kind soul e-mailed me the manual, and now another kind soul has told me where I could have found it all along! You guys rock...sometimes.

 

Michael

[snarre]

i had to say that 4.0  maked game mutch better and right direction sou at last on my mind . i give 10/10 points to BF 

[StieliAlpha]

On 15.1.2017 at 4:04 PM, akd said:

If you placed your hull down waypoint on the tracks, then you instructed the vehicle to stop once it was hull down relative to a tank sitting on top of the tracks.  Since it was already presumably hull-up to this position and that did not change along the course of the path, the vehicle continued to the end of the hull down order because it never reached a position that triggered it to stop.

Remember: the AI cannot simply find a generic hull down position.  A good hull down position depends on inferring where the target will be, which is far beyond the AI in most circumstances.  Hull down is always relative to another point on the map, and you must tell the AI what point to use as a reference.  If you just give a hull down move order, the hull down waypoint is the reference point.  If you attach a target to the hull down waypoint, this target becomes the reference point.

Hm, sounds sensible, indeed. I thought with the HD command the vehicles would just move to the next partially covered position along the route. But you are right, that does not make much sense. Without a potential target, it's pretty hard to say what is "partially covered".

[Ch53dVet]

I don't know if this is true or not but after I've placed an automatic hull down command the tank will always by-pass any partial hull down locations and keep going to the placement point in-hopes of finding a 100% hull down location, even if there wasn't any to begin with, leading me straight to the murder hole I was try to avoid.

It would be nice if when drawing a hull down command line you'd get pop ups along the line (where the line intersects the rising ground, similar to using the target command as a los indicator) referring you to the % type of hull down it is at that point along the length of the line to its placement marker, also, if there aren't any hull down locations along the path you wouldn't be allowed to place a suicide marker.

[gnarly]

On 2/9/2017 at 7:36 AM, Ch53dVet said:

I don't know if this is true or not but after I've placed an automatic hull down command the tank will always by-pass any partial hull down locations and keep going to the placement point in-hopes of finding a 100% hull down location, even if there wasn't any to begin with, leading me straight to the murder hole I was try to avoid.

It would be nice if when drawing a hull down command line you'd get pop ups along the line (where the line intersects the rising ground, similar to using the target command as a los indicator) referring you to the % type of hull down it is at that point along the length of the line to its placement marker, also, if there aren't any hull down locations along the path you wouldn't be allowed to place a suicide marker.

Have you actually drawn a target command from the Hull-Down end-point to a target of interest?

 

You may have, but your post sounds like you've simply placed a Hull-Down move point with nothing else.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, gnarly said:

Have you actually drawn a target command from the Hull-Down end-point to a target of interest?

Recently I was trying out the HD command and the above was one of the techniques I tried. The upshot was that this along with all the other techniques I tried would not get the command to work as advertised. For the present I have simply discarded it and gone back to eyeballing the hull down positions I want my units to take, which seems to work perfectly so far.

Michael

Edited February 10, 2017 by Michael Emrys

[Jock Tamson]

8 hours ago, gnarly said:

Have you actually drawn a target command from the Hull-Down end-point to a target of interest?

 

You may have, but your post sounds like you've simply placed a Hull-Down move point with nothing else.

Which will still work - the unit will stop at a position which is hull down to the waypoint, if it finds one.  Setting a target from a HD waypoint will make the unit stop at a position which is HD to the target, somewhere along the line to the waypoint.  Both equally valid ways of using the command.

[Ch53dVet]

15 hours ago, gnarly said:

Have you actually drawn a target command from the Hull-Down end-point to a target of interest?

 

You may have, but your post sounds like you've simply placed a Hull-Down move point with nothing else.

No, I want to be HD to the target, not HD to the end point, (unless the end point is the target) which, might not be HD to any location on the map. I'll draw the target command from manual movement commands to find the 100% HD locations. The addition of the HD command (from what I've read) is supposed to help and remove the manually micro'ed procedure as I've stated above.

If I have a possible sound contact or I suspect a possible ambush location and there is elevated land between us, I will place the hull down marker on the target or suspect location. However, the elevation between us might not be enough for a 100% hull down location, only a partial one at best, "it appears to me" (and I could be wrong)  that when a hull down command is issued it will always by-pass the partial HD locations in search for a full HD location and if one doesn't exist it will take me to the murder hole (end point) I was hoping to avoid.

I could add a target command at the end of the HD endpoint, yes, but, if there isn't a true HD position between me and the possible target or suspected location endpoint I won't fire my main gun if the enemy comes into view, because, I have an area target command to get out of the way first before I can engage any real dangers in front of me. I, have as yet, to see any real self-preservation override any pre-programmed orders, even though all the manuals say that self preservation does exist. I have yet to see one occur. 

I was just saying, the documentation I've read on the new hull down command doesn't specifically state if your armor will stop for both partial and full HD locations. It would be nice to have the ability of not being able to place a HD endpoint between you and the target location if one does not literally exist.

[Michael Emrys]

55 minutes ago, Ch53dVet said:

..."it appears to me" (and I could be wrong)  that when a hull down command is issued it will always by-pass the partial HD locations in search for a full HD location and if one doesn't exist it will take me to the murder hole (end point) I was hoping to avoid.

Now that's an interesting thought. If true, it might explain the behavior I've observed. I noticed that on the map I was using that it was almost impossible to find any full hull down positions when setting them manually, they were usually just partial hull down.

Michael

[Jock Tamson]

On 2/10/2017 at 8:25 PM, Ch53dVet said:

No, I want to be HD to the target, not HD to the end point, (unless the end point is the target) which, might not be HD to any location on the map. I'll draw the target command from manual movement commands to find the 100% HD locations. The addition of the HD command (from what I've read) is supposed to help and remove the manually micro'ed procedure as I've stated above.

If I have a possible sound contact or I suspect a possible ambush location and there is elevated land between us, I will place the hull down marker on the target or suspect location. However, the elevation between us might not be enough for a 100% hull down location, only a partial one at best, "it appears to me" (and I could be wrong)  that when a hull down command is issued it will always by-pass the partial HD locations in search for a full HD location and if one doesn't exist it will take me to the murder hole (end point) I was hoping to avoid.

I could add a target command at the end of the HD endpoint, yes, but, if there isn't a true HD position between me and the possible target or suspected location endpoint I won't fire my main gun if the enemy comes into view, because, I have an area target command to get out of the way first before I can engage any real dangers in front of me. I, have as yet, to see any real self-preservation override any pre-programmed orders, even though all the manuals say that self preservation does exist. I have yet to see one occur. 

I was just saying, the documentation I've read on the new hull down command doesn't specifically state if your armor will stop for both partial and full HD locations. It would be nice to have the ability of not being able to place a HD endpoint between you and the target location if one does not literally exist.

That target line on the HD waypoint is not an area fire order.  Have you actually tried it? - I don't see the behaviour you are describing (ie the Area Fire).

Edited February 14, 2017 by Jock Tamson

[Ch53dVet]

12 hours ago, Jock Tamson said:

That target line on the HD waypoint is not an area fire order.  Have you actually tried it? - I don't see the behaviour you are describing (ie the Area Fire).

Again, No. I choose not to because as the 4.0 game engine states:If the (optional) designated target was an Area Target, the vehicle will cancel the Target command upon reaching hull down. If the target is an enemy unit, the vehicle will begin attacking the target once it reaches hull down.

The key point I've been trying to make here is that just because you can draw a HD command line, it doesn't guarantee you that a HD location exists between you and the endpoint, from what I've seen so far is that after placing a HD command marker between you and the enemy your tank commander will disregard partial HD locations in hopes of finding a full HD location and if a full HD location doesn't exist your area target command won't cancel out and you'll be hopeless and dead as your tank commander drives you to the enemy.