• Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
IICptMillerII

CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

33 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, sburke said:

true to a degree, but I was seeing some similar behavior in MG in what I think was then 3.0.  I watched squads of guys start bailing out of a building when 82mm mortars were dropping on the roof.  They'd run outside and then start dropping like flies from mortar rounds.

Yes, under the right conditions, in 3.0 infantry would eventually break after taking direct or indirect fires. However, that happened at a much lower frequency than it does in 4.0. 

In the first part of the video, when it is comparing the behavioral differences between the 3.0 and 4.0 engine, the troops are set to the exact same stats. In 4.0, the conscripts run. In 3.0, they do not. Further, when you max out the stats of the infantry in 4.0, they still run. This shows that the behavior is not tied to a particular stat level, but it applies to all infantry regardless of skill in 4.0. In 3.0 how brittle, or likely an infantry unit is to displace under direct fire was tied to its morale state and its veterancy level. In 4.0, neither of those matter. The first shell to land close to a team, regardless of its current stats, will displace. 

I apologize for not labeling the stats of all the infantry in the test. It was an oversight. I'm not overly savvy with video editing, and the video I made for this thread is actually the longest video I've ever made. Please forgive the amateur nature of it. 

10 hours ago, snarre said:

i dont mind that mutch about arty fire and how AI behave , bigest problem what i see is small arm fire.

 

I am planning on doing a follow up video after I get more feedback on new things to include and improve upon. That video will include the 4.0 TacAI's reaction to small arms fire. I did some initial testing last night to see if it is as blatant as the indirect fleeing behavior is, and so far it is not. Right now my feeling is, if it does turn out there is a bug with the current 4.0 AI, and if that is fixed, then any issue with small arms behavior will be fixed as well. 

 

53 minutes ago, IanL said:

As @sburke said these are very likely side effects of the desired change to have troops caught in the open under direct or indirect HE fire should displace to avoid just staying put and becoming casulties.

This is precisely my conclusion as well. I believe this to be a bug with the new behavior, not a fatal flaw with the TacAI programming. Happy to help! Thats why I've gone through the effort.

Edited by IICptMillerII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for doing the work to post side-by-side videos. Yeah: I agree with you. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 2:04 AM, IICptMillerII said:

I understand that this video is not a conclusive test, I did not intend for it to be that. It is simply to show a comparison between common behaviors found in versions 3 and 4, and to show that many of the behaviors encountered in version 4 are not optimal. It's my personal opinion that there is a bug here, but again I have not run enough tests to accumulate the data necessary to say that for certain.

I agree with the bug opinion on troops running away instead of stay low, still it would be interesting to see the same test with troops "hiding".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lille Fiskerby said:

I agree with the bug opinion on troops running away instead of stay low, still it would be interesting to see the same test with troops "hiding".

Thanks for the input. I will be sure to add a 'hiding' test to the next video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanted to chime in as well on some of the AI behavior I've seen. After working on a test scenario for Omaha Beach (CMBN) I've noticed that tank HE splash seems to displace infantry as well. I kept having the issue of German infantry in forward trench lines displacing to the rear out of sight trenches making the defense ineffective. Two other peculiar things I noticed with the US infantry is if there's a smoke spot the infantry will converge in mass inside the smoke and if I put deep water tiles 100-200 meters away they would displace towards that for the elevation cover. I would guess that means there isn't a distance restriction on displacement for best available cover? Either way it's fairly annoying for single player. Doesn't seem to be that much of an issue for the modern title though probably due to dug in defenses being a rarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, carcer said:

tank HE splash seems to displace infantry as well.

It does, and for the most part it works as intended. The idea is that instead of just sitting in an exposed position like the middle of a road and getting blasted away by direct HE fire, the Infantry will instead seek to displace and find better cover. The primary issue, the that when Infantry are already in that good cover, they still displace. It is my opinion that Infantry should only be displacing from direct or indirect HE if they are caught in the open, or if they are in a building and are taking direct HE fire. Otherwise, they should not be abandoning good cover, as they have a better chance of survival if they stay out, as well as better maintaining a defensive posture overall. 

 

3 hours ago, carcer said:

Two other peculiar things I noticed with the US infantry is if there's a smoke spot the infantry will converge in mass inside the smoke and if I put deep water tiles 100-200 meters away they would displace towards that for the elevation cover. I would guess that means there isn't a distance restriction on displacement for best available cover?

This is interesting. I haven't noticed this specifically myself, though I have not tested/looked for it. I'll play around with the editor next time I get a chance to see if I get the same results as you did. Right now, it's my feeling that if the current displacement bug is fixed, what you posted about will be much less of an issue/annoyance. 

 

3 hours ago, carcer said:

Either way it's fairly annoying for single player.

In my opinion, it makes a very many single player scenarios unplayable in the current state in all titles running v4. Not all of them, but a good portion of them. It was the single player scenario "Red Hordes" in CMRT that finally convinced me the new behavior is bugged. Over in the CMFI forum there is a longer running thread discussing if the new behavior makes the CMFI campaigns unplayable. Most of them feature assaults against well entrenched defenders. You can imagine the concern of the thread, having seen some of the new behavior in question for yourself. 

Thanks for the feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 10:07 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Thanks for the input. I will be sure to add a 'hiding' test to the next video. 

Sadly, I seem to find that using "Hide" when troops are in trenches doesn't help. They still flee out into the open when under enemy Arty fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Sadly, I seem to find that using "Hide" when troops are in trenches doesn't help. They still flee out into the open when under enemy Arty fire.

A permanent pause command is the only certain work-around at present. Which, of course, the Ai cannot be told to do by a scenario designer so it really doesn't solve the problem of 4.0 dumbing down the single player experience considerably.  Its a fine stopgap solution for H2H but it adds another layer of tedium to a game that already demands hard attention to detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now