Jump to content
IICptMillerII

CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

Recommended Posts

RE Trees;

Please take this conversation to a different thread. This thread is specifically for the new TacAI behaviors, and has nothing to do with how trees are modeled in game. 

Back on topic, if there are any ideas anyone has for the part two video that may help to better showcase the current issue, I would appreciate hearing them. As of right now I have a few ideas that I've picked up from this thread. Hoping to include a few more in order for the second video to be substantial and worth the effort. Any and all suggestions are welcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2017 at 3:24 AM, Warts 'n' all said:

It would be nice if you are making a second video to include some buildings. So that we can compare with your use of trenches in the first test.

Noted,

 

19 hours ago, Broadsword56 said:

...and some foxholes and bunkers too, please.

and noted!

Thanks for the input!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 9:57 PM, akd said:

There are two problems here:

1. Core CM problem unrelated to Engine 4: AI has no concept of proactive use of cover and only uses cover reactively.  Foxholes and trenches will not provide good cover for AI until AI has already taken significant casualties from indirect fire.

2. Engine 4 problem that exacerbates the above: AI in cover will proactively displace from cover after receiving very light casualties.

You can see the feedback loop problem that results.  Solution: instead of AI recognizing indirect / HE threat and proactively displacing, AI should recognize foxholes / trenches as good cover versus indirect / HE and proactively use this cover when subjected to indirect / HE (cower / hide to minimize exposure).  Artillery vs. AI in cover then becomes more about suppression than destruction (as is the case in reality).

Coming to this a bit late but @akd has summed up my thoughts precisely. TacAI knowing the unit is in hard cover should have a stronger level of influence, especially for incoming mortar and artillery fire. If the unit takes a heavy hit resulting in a number of casualties resulting in a panicked status then fair enough there should be a risk of it doing something unpredictable/stupid. The same argument could also be made for conscripts or green troops.

A TacAI's understanding of the terrain the unit both currently occupies and what is close by when they come under fire has long been one of my pet gripes. Just watch some of my YouTube videos. :P Soldiers that come under fire while running across a street to hard cover waypoint such as a building, will turn around and run back through the line of fire (even when they know where it was coming from) rather than dash through the open door that was literally two feet in front of them.

Edited by Ithikial_AU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess on when we can see this addressed is when the 4.0 upgrade comes for CMSF. To me, that seems like the most logical point, as they will have the code cracked open so to speak in order to apply it all to CMSF. Should be the easiest time for them to make the fix and include it in testing for CMSF2.

Let me be clear: I have no insider knowledge on this. This is just my best guess.

While it would be nice to have a hotfix sooner, I don't think waiting for CMSF2 is that bad. BFC is a bit backlogged right now, but we know that they are planning to have CMSF2 out by the end of the year, based on their revised business model of 2 modules and 1 title/major upgrade per year. Steve mentioned this in the Lend=Lease thread here in the CMRT forum if I remember correctly. Seeing as how they are currently backlogged, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait a bit longer, say Q1 2018, for CMSF2 and a possible fix to the 4.0 behavior. Not that bad all things considered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Erwin said:

Am hoping that due to interest in the topic, CMSF2 has been put on the front burner for speedy release.  Surely that would be the best seller at this period of time.

I sure hope you are right there, just the thought of playing CMSF2 makes my heart jumping :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2017 at 1:31 PM, Raptorx7 said:

Can we get a confirmation that this is at least being looked at?

It does appear that we have shed light on the issue and it is being considered at this time. I and others have been in contact with some of the testers/content creators here on the forums and they report the same. 

As I mentioned earlier, its likely we haven't heard anything from the devs because they are backlogged and trying to work through that at the moment, which is completely understandable. 

An update on the second video I had planned. I think for now I'm going to hold off on making it. I feel the first video is more than adequate at illustrating the primary issue, and a second video would be a bit overkill at this point. My primary intent with the video was to show 1) there is a problem and 2) what that problem is. If the devs were to say that they needed more evidence of a problem, then I would go ahead and make a second video, but at this point I am content that its been seen and understood. 

If others have further evidence/examples they would like to post, feel free to use this thread as a place to put it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am watching the CMSF2 AAR very carefully for this reason. I've been playing CMRT and having problems because scenarios and QBs besides meeting engagements are really dragged down by infantry bolting out of their trenches.

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

×