Has 4.0 made the stock campaigns unplayable?

[Erwin]

Wonder if it's possible to temporarily have units increase some factors when in good defensive terrain?  (I mean for BF to program that in.)

Edited April 19, 2017 by Erwin

[DougPhresh]

Running from trenches is a big big problem. Even more so in CMBS where a BMP3 can destroy an entire company by making them run from cover and then hitting them with airburst 100mm. I'm often left scrambling as I have dismounted and dispersed infantry to attack the treeline, or wherever I spotted the enemy, but by the time I get there, everybody has taken off. This is an exercise in frustration as in a hour and a half QB, most of the time is spent regrouping infantry to their transport and planning and executing yet another attack into thin air.

Any scenario with dug-in Italians in CMFI is a no-go right now, no matter how well their trenches are designed. They could be behind double wire, a minefield and in connected trenches and a mortar platoon will make them head for the hills.

e: I know I joke about "Artillery conquors, Infantry occupies" but if it really was this easy to just shoot the enemy off position, there'd be no need to press attacks, ever.

Edited April 20, 2017 by DougPhresh

[Erwin]

Am all about the fun of the game, so agree with your frustration.  However, the above behavior seems very "realistic". 

Generally, there were only a few nasty "stand and die" battles when there was defensive terrain that absolutely had to be held at all costs.  In those cases it's perhaps better for the designer to use more highly motivated defenders.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

How much difference does unit motivation actually make?

[General Liederkranz]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Am all about the fun of the game, so agree with your frustration.  However, the above behavior seems very "realistic". 

Generally, there were only a few nasty "stand and die" battles when there was defensive terrain that absolutely had to be held at all costs.  In those cases it's perhaps better for the designer to use more highly motivated defenders.

In general I agree that the reduced morale under upgrade 4, in most other circumstances, does seem to make "stand and die" situations realisitcally less common. But for the specific situation of artillery against entrenched defenders I'm dubious--one main purpose of digging trenches is to survive sporadic 81mm mortar and light artillery fire. Concentrated 155mm fire would perhaps be different. But as I understand it, even heavy preparatory artillery before an attack against entrenched defenders wasn't intended to make them run away, but to pin them down, break them up, and suppress them in their entrenchments while the attackers closed. (And in any case, I've frequently heard it said that CM scenarios typically pick up just after longer preliminary bombardments have finished. Why would entrenched defenders stay put under rocket and heavy artillery fire for hours, only to pick up and run when the attacking battalion's mortars throw a few rounds their way?)

[Erwin]

I do not disagree with your logic.  I keep suggesting that units while in good defensive positions should receive some sort of temporary morale or motivational boost.  Maybe not possible currently, but mention it to BF for the next iteration.

[Holman]

I've played several scenarios in all the games at 4.0, and I'm definitely seeing a problem here.

It looks like units in good cover (trenches, foxholes, buildings) are running when they should simply cower in place.  It's almost as if the running/cowering behavior has been flipped somehow.

It's not just an HE barrage problem.  I've now become very used to seeing squads inside of buildings break and run out into the street because one of them got shot through the window.

Morale also seems to be a bigger issue across formations.  I had a fresh squad split into teams in three buildings out of sight of any enemy.  When one of the other squads in their platoon came under fire about 100 yards away, all three teams in the first squad broke.

 

[Artkin]

On 4/18/2017 at 0:05 PM, Muzzleflash1990 said:

Sounds like the use of pause command is an exploit to avoid panicking when there is no follow-up order, like a movement order, and actually a bug that artificially grants morale boost when there one.

This

[LiveNoMore]

Have to add my 2 cents to this. I have now played 2 games under V4, a CMFB and a CMFI where I am the defender. My troops are all behind walls, in buildings or entrenchments. As soon as they take fire, HE or small arms, they get nervous, then within 1 turn, break and run. All have been veterans with good morale and 0-+1 leaders. All under command.  This should not happen. Troops should not be running from protected positions this easily. 

And... it has happened with a couple of my tanks too! A Panther and a Tiger, both in defensive positions with covered arcs popped smoke and baked away without firing a shot. This happened multiple times during the scenario.

 

It makes for a game that is not fun to play.

[rocketman]

3 hours ago, LiveNoMore said:

Have to add my 2 cents to this. I have now played 2 games under V4, a CMFB and a CMFI where I am the defender. My troops are all behind walls, in buildings or entrenchments. As soon as they take fire, HE or small arms, they get nervous, then within 1 turn, break and run. All have been veterans with good morale and 0-+1 leaders. All under command.  This should not happen. Troops should not be running from protected positions this easily. 

And... it has happened with a couple of my tanks too! A Panther and a Tiger, both in defensive positions with covered arcs popped smoke and baked away without firing a shot. This happened multiple times during the scenario.

 

It makes for a game that is not fun to play.

I was the oppo in the two games mentioned above and we were both surprised in a negative way with how units behaved. Out of the two descriptions the one involving tanks was perhaps even more surprising and it made me think and understand why it happened. Never seen before 4.0. Like many instances described in this thread, infantry break away too soon from fortified positions when coming under fire, but that tanks would do the same, even while not getting hit was odd.

I wonder if the game treats the tank and crew like one or two entities? We know that crews sometimes bail out when stressed even when the tank is still functioning so perhaps it treats it like two entities. So my thinking here is that what if the crew in a tank is like an infantry team in a trench/foxhole/house and that they too might take unnecessary evasive action if this "bug/unintended behaviour" affects tanks as well? Has anyone else encountered strange tank behaviour post 4.0?

[Holman]

I can't say that I've seen strange tank behavior.  I've played a number of tank-heavy scenarios under 4.0, and tanks seem to me to behave like earlier patches.  (Most of this play has been in CMRT, CMBN, and recently CMFI.)

Maybe there's a tendency for crews to bail out more readily when penetrated, but that might be realistic.  I'm not seeing much comparable to the infantry's new enthusiasm for standing up and running out of good cover, or at least not that stood out to me.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Holman

[DougPhresh]

I can vouch for AFVs behaving oddly. Tanks in the WW2 titles as well as IFVs etc. in the modern titles will pop smoke and reverse even if hull down, sometimes even if under fire that can't possibly damage them like 20mm. It's frustrating to babysit units every turn to make sure they aren't pulling back, even moreso in realtime where I have to pause constantly to cancel reverse and pop smoke orders.

[Txema]

Any comments from Battlefront about stock campaigns and game engine version 4.0?

If I am going to play the stock campaigns is it better to do it with the original game engine or with version 4.0?

I would like to know prior to buying 4.0...

Thank you very much for your help !

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I can vouch for AFVs behaving oddly. Tanks in the WW2 titles as well as IFVs etc. in the modern titles will pop smoke and reverse even if hull down, sometimes even if under fire that can't possibly damage them like 20mm. It's frustrating to babysit units every turn to make sure they aren't pulling back, even moreso in realtime where I have to pause constantly to cancel reverse and pop smoke orders.

I agree, even T-90's behave very nervous, blow smoke and retreat fast when they get a laser warning.  But, in RL wouldn't that be realistic.  The crew usually doesn't know what is doing the lasing.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The smoke dischargers are linked to the LWD IIRC, it's automated.....But even Elite T-90s always seemed to go into panic mode when they were lased before the update, whereas Abrams would just shoot. 

Edited April 24, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

Sigh, that is just not true. M1s would frequently go into panic mode too.

The way things work is this:

1) If you get lazed and you have no current fast move order or no targeting in progress crews would listen to the automatic system - something that can kill you is aiming and you have no idea who it is and only a direction to look. Get away quickly.

2) If you have a fast move order continue to execute it - assuming that the movement order is to get to better cover and therefore you are better off following those orders ASAP. I forget if auto smoke discharge still happens or not.

3) You are actively engaged in targeting an enemy (I mean the crew is not you). Complete that aiming and firing sequence before beginning evasive manoeuvres.

Crew experience and leadership factor in as well but that's the basic set of rules - T90, M1, T80 etc they all basically work inside the same framework.

[MikeyD]

I have never found buildings - especially smaller buildings - to be a particularly good places to position troops. Once the bullets start piercing the walls you need your troops to be elite fanatics to be willing to stay and die. I recall years ago suggesting to someone that the best use of building is to position you men behind them, not in them. Perhaps shoot-and-hide, or shoot-and-scoot. But not stay in the building fighting after you've been discovered and targeted.

Edited April 25, 2017 by MikeyD

[Holman]

4 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I have never found buildings - especially smaller buildings - to be a particularly good places to position troops. Once the bullets start piercing the walls you need your troops to be elite fanatics to be willing to stay and die. I recall years ago suggesting to someone that the best use of building is to position you men behind them, not in them. Perhaps shoot-and-hide, or shoot-and-scoot. But not stay in the building fighting after you've been discovered and targeted.

But in a town scenario, you have the choice of being in the building or in the open.  I'm seeing units flee into the street after one casualty, and often "into the street" means running into the open and towards the enemy.

This wasn't nearly as common before 4.0.

[DougPhresh]

Even as far back as Shock Force the Syrian Army and Uncons would stand and fight in trenches and buildings, to a point.

[Wodin]

I feel unless a soldier has totally panicked they should stay put if in a fortified position i.e foxhole upwards when under Arty bombardment. Only if they have lost all sense and reason should they vacate said position during bombardment to run into the open.

Vacating a position during enemy bombardment, that you had built for the very reason of having some protection if under bombardment, just makes no sense to me.

 

I think this really needs looking at by BF.

 

Maybe we need a defend command to issue at the end of a move order etc? This command would make sure the unit did it's utmost to stay and defend the position and if possible retake it if pushed out?

Edited April 25, 2017 by Wodin

[Hilts]

16 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I have never found buildings - especially smaller buildings - to be a particularly good places to position troops. Once the bullets start piercing the walls you need your troops to be elite fanatics to be willing to stay and die. I recall years ago suggesting to someone that the best use of building is to position you men behind them, not in them. Perhaps shoot-and-hide, or shoot-and-scoot. But not stay in the building fighting after you've been discovered and targeted.

I'm not sure the battle of Stalingrad would have lasted quite as long if troops had positioned themselves behind buildings rather than in them....

[Glubokii Boy]

 

 

10 minutes ago, Hilts said:

I'm not sure the battle of Stalingrad would have lasted quite as long if troops had positioned themselves behind buildings rather than in them....

I might be missremembering now (i have not played a QB for a long time) but i seem to recall that when playing a QB the AI would deploy pretty much all of its troops outside of the buildings in a wierd way rather then inside them.

I think that this was tweaked atleast to some degree a few patches back

If this is correct

Could perhaps the AIs apprisiation of the cover that buildings provide be upped yet another level  i wounder ?

Maybe also fortrifications ?

 

 

.

 

[Holman]

MikeyD, is the issue of behavior under fire after engine 4.0 something that BTS is looking at?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎24‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 10:33 PM, IanL said:

Crew experience and leadership factor in as well but that's the basic set of rules - T90, M1, T80 etc they all basically work inside the same framework.

T-80 you say?  Tell us of these T-80s of which you speak. 

Fair play on the Abrams thing Ian, I'm kind of teasing really, but those damned things really do seem to be hard as nails, perhaps a little harder than they should be.....It hasn't prevented me from buying and to a lesser extent playing the game and everything released for it.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

T-80 you say?  Tell us of these T-80s of which you speak. 

Oops. What are those things called again, T84 right.

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fair play on the Abrams thing Ian, I'm kind of teasing really, but those damned things really do seem to be hard as nails, perhaps a little harder than they should be.....It hasn't prevented me from buying and to a lesser extent playing the game and everything released for it.

It's always chalenging to get the performance of vehicles that have not had 70 years of analysis just right.