Jump to content

A Plea to Developers


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

They already do. You can order a team to target a spot on the other side of a tall wall, and they will throw across grenades even though there's no LOS. However, they only throw about 1-2 grenades every turn, which is usually not enough.

What's the relative range of these grenades, and is their ability to through outside LOS dependant upon elevation? In one of the instances I experiences I had a squad in a piece of dead ground with an enemy squad just outside of it (maybe two or three AS's away). I couldn't trace LOS to the enemy squad so I couldn't order an area fire, hence no grenades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, c3k said:

@WriterJWA brought some good points in his post. But, I'll address the (cut-down) portion of his subsequent post, above, first.

Yes, I'd love to be able to knock down that tall wall with my tank or AAV or BMP. @sburke made the point that once it is allowed in one case (tall wall surrounding a compound), it must be allowed in all cases. Like, the case where you click on your AAV to FAST to a point 500m away. And then the AI sends it careening through 7 different walls to get there...and it immobilizes on the 8th. Or, the Player can breach a tall wall with an explicit order to do so, but the TacAI cannot (because of the careening through walls needlessly issue).

 

Are you saying it has to be allowed in all cases because the program itself doesn't differentiate between wall types and the risks of throwing a track inherent to each type, or because players would take advantage of it? If the latter, then the program needs to reflect the risk of that decision. If a player decides to plow through walls over and over then they increase their chances of becoming immobilized.... Darwin's Law ensues. Also, armored vehicles already slow down upon breaching fences, why would that have to change with allow for breaching walls? Why can't the game just represent physics as it happens on the ground? Not to be snarky, but I feel like I'm playing wacka-mole with whataboutisms. 

Now, in terms of the AI and it's lack of risk-management.... Yeah, I get your point in general terms, but I don't think it's a big enough reason to nerf the player into unrealistic actions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:

What's the relative range of these grenades, and is their ability to through outside LOS dependant upon elevation? In one of the instances I experiences I had a squad in a piece of dead ground with an enemy squad just outside of it (maybe two or three AS's away). I couldn't trace LOS to the enemy squad so I couldn't order an area fire, hence no grenades. 

Range is about 30 metres maximum. When it works, the LOS tool will be grey. Doesn't matter if there's a small rise in elevation or a wall, but I don't think you can throw over a building.

Here's Bil's page that explains it much better:

http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2017/05/battle-technique-throw-grenades-over.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Range is about 30 metres maximum. When it works, the LOS tool will be grey. Doesn't matter if there's a small rise in elevation or a wall, but I don't think you can throw over a building.

Here's Bil's page that explains it much better:

http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2017/05/battle-technique-throw-grenades-over.html

 

Nice! Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I see your point, but I think you're forgetting that tanks can already run over small walls and hedges. And those obstacles already cause damage to the tracks. Nobody thinks that's a problem, as far as I can see. The AI sometimes drives a tank through stuff like that, but it's very rare that it gets immobilised from it.

Actually there have been complaints about it. Depending on the map and AI plans you find the AI gets stuck and commits a weak attack. Folks tend to design around that but in an urban map your options are really limited and vehicles have a real hard time pathing. Vineyards are another area of complaint. Same issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, sburke said:
7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I see your point, but I think you're forgetting that tanks can already run over small walls and hedges. And those obstacles already cause damage to the tracks. Nobody thinks that's a problem, as far as I can see. The AI sometimes drives a tank through stuff like that, but it's very rare that it gets immobilised from it.

Actually there have been complaints about it. Depending on the map and AI plans you find the AI gets stuck and commits a weak attack. Folks tend to design around that but in an urban map your options are really limited and vehicles have a real hard time pathing. Vineyards are another area of complaint. Same issue. 

I think it's more of a general issue with the way AI works/doesn't work in this game. Designing a reasonable AI attack is extremely difficult. Just ordering an AI group to "attack" towards a specific area won't work - obstacles or not. But most designers customise such maps extensively to minimise things that can cause pathfinding trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 8:36 AM, WriterJWA said:

 

  • This brings me to another point.... I think this may be in the process of being addressed, so forgive me if I'm repeating a soon-to-be-fixed flaw, but troops don't helter-skelter into random and dangerous directions when they come under fire. More than likely then go prone and remain in place. I can't count how many times I've had troops bolt into the open when they come under fire only to die needlessly.
  • In one scenario I had a squad in a field of tall grass and they came under fire. The only guys who were able to return fire were the guys who were kneeling. The rest couldn't draw an LOS and therefore couldn't fire. Were their squad members mute? Could they not tell their fellow soldiers the direction of fire and relatively range? Where was their squad leader? Why wasn't some form of ADDRAC statement issued?
2

 

Quote

Agree completely about behavior under fire. I would expect troops to seek immediate cover or go prone and return fire. I expect casualties, of course, when ambushed but the degree of damage inflicted seems inappropriately high and troops seem helpless when fired on. Please don't misconstrue this concern as a rank criticism because it is not. When I play I make what seems to me to be unrealistic adjustments in play to avoid this circumstance. I have no real life combat experience to draw upon and I may be the one who is unrealistic here. But it just seems to me...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hemostat said:

Agree completely about behavior under fire. I would expect troops to seek immediate cover or go prone and return fire. I expect casualties, of course, when ambushed but the degree of damage inflicted seems inappropriately high and troops seem helpless when fired on. Please don't misconstrue this concern as a rank criticism because it is not. When I play I make what seems to me to be unrealistic adjustments in play to avoid this circumstance. I have no real life combat experience to draw upon and I may be the one who is unrealistic here. But it just seems to me...

 

Yeah, I was thinking about this further... In infantry schools they used to teach a basic procedure for these things. If ambushed inside of 50 meters we were trained to turn toward the fire and assault through the enemy position. If outside of 50 meters were were to take cover and return fire to establish fire superiority. Obvious these are easier said than done, and entirely dependant on terrain, volume of fire, etc... but those were the baselines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WJA, all your points are on the mark.

and some here have pointed out a few of them can be somewhat resolved with features presently in the game.

Other items are likely not going to be resolved,  but it does not hurt to point them out. The sad thing is I am sure the designers also know about these short comings along withy some others not mentioned.

We as players can get very critical as to the game needing to represent things correctly as to how it is in real life. I am sure I have done it myself more than a few times over the years. But the truth is, it is a game and it is a computer program with all sorts of compromises in the programming that has been made but to us the user it seems to reflect reality pretty good.

I am just amazed that it does as well as it does. The things we complain about the game is pretty limited compared to all the things the game is trying to portray.

These guys really do try to get it right and we as the consumer needs to be reminded that they have made a huge effort to do just that.

So keep that in mind before you make comments that sound like the effort has not been put into trying to get it to do things as correct as possible.

We the consumer needs to realize there is going to be short comings, just is how it is. So when asking about possible improvements, keeping our tone in a positive manor is important. Because there is limits to what they can do.

Nothing wrong in making suggestions, but acting upset because they are there is not a mature way of seeing it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WriterJWA said:

In infantry schools they used to teach a basic procedure for these things. If ambushed inside of 50 meters we were trained to turn toward the fire and assault through the enemy position.

I wonder if anyone ever managed to pull that off. To me, that sounds a bit like those old Duck and Cover plans to surviving a nuclear attack. When you see a bright flash, duck under your table and hope you surivive. Would have had little effect, but it gave people a sense that they could do something in case the worst happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I wonder if anyone ever managed to pull that off. To me, that sounds a bit like those old Duck and Cover plans to surviving a nuclear attack. When you see a bright flash, duck under your table and hope you surivive. Would have had little effect, but it gave people a sense that they could do something in case the worst happened.

I'd suggest it's more a question of: "What else can you do?"

An ambush at point blank range doesn't give time or space for anything other than a direct assault, and if you attack through a target then you're not just re-claiming the initiative/position that you've lost, but the surrounding area.

I do think it's more than "duck and cover" in terms of effective strategy, but it's also pretty much a worst-case scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I wonder if anyone ever managed to pull that off. To me, that sounds a bit like those old Duck and Cover plans to surviving a nuclear attack. When you see a bright flash, duck under your table and hope you surivive. Would have had little effect, but it gave people a sense that they could do something in case the worst happened.

 

I met one fellow way back when I was in college. he was in Vietnam (infantry) and had been caught in a ambush and they did just that. Turned into it and assaulted.

Of course, his memory of it was very limited. They were on a roadway when they were hit. he managed to take a few steps before a explosion blew him back and dropped him on the ground, when he managed to get his wits about him again, he crawled away from the enemy to the far side of the road and found the only cover available, a tree trunk, so he positioned himself behind that and hide. The problem was, it was not really any cover. So he next was shot in his butt. That was all he had to the story.

His unit did manage to assault enough that the ambush ceased and withdrew. He said the unit lost a lot of men that day, some were his friends and he felt terrible about his own actions. but that was about the only combat experience he had while there.

the few other events he was in, all he knew was where the fire was coming from, never really could see anyone, just muzzle flashes, and him firing back into the location. And no one moving , just firing til the units disengaged from each other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, slysniper said:
6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I wonder if anyone ever managed to pull that off. To me, that sounds a bit like those old Duck and Cover plans to surviving a nuclear attack. When you see a bright flash, duck under your table and hope you surivive. Would have had little effect, but it gave people a sense that they could do something in case the worst happened.

 

I met one fellow way back when I was in college. he was in Vietnam (infantry) and had been caught in a ambush and they did just that. Turned into it and assaulted.

Thanks for sharing, +1. Interesting. I thought walking into an ambush at 50m range would be certain death to most of the ambushed party within a couple of seconds, but of course reality is not always like I imagine.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

I'd suggest it's more a question of: "What else can you do?"

I guess another SOP could be that everyone ducks down behind whatever cover they can find - in ditches, behind/under vehicles, then fire back blindly with everything they have in the general direction of the enemy. Throw grenades too.

Some ambushes are hit and run affairs, so if you could survive the first minute there's a reasonable chance the enemy might withdraw once fire starts coming their way too.

Also, if you're travelling in a long column, you might have more friends coming to help out. So time would be on your side and you'd have little to gain by rushing forward in a situation where the enemy already has established fire superiority from concealed positions.

But that's my non-military background take on this. You're free to tear it apart with actual experience :) 

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2019 at 4:05 PM, Bulletpoint said:

Range is about 30 metres maximum. When it works, the LOS tool will be grey. Doesn't matter if there's a small rise in elevation or a wall, but I don't think you can throw over a building.

Here's Bil's page that explains it much better:

http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2017/05/battle-technique-throw-grenades-over.html

 

I think it's very unintuitive. In my opinion it would probably be more flexible if it could be used like the "Pop smoke" order, which would make it so your men don't fire their weapons unnecessarily (if the target is in direct line of sight) when the point is to flush out the enemies with the grenades, then use the weapons in close assault and/or if they start retreating. It could give you a better way to surprise your enemy.

Kinda like this scene here:

 

Edited by Frenchy56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Designing a reasonable AI attack is extremely difficult

Well... designing a reasonable AI attack is as difficult as trying to parallel park a stick shift car without first learning how to drive stick. At first it seems impossible, but after you've learned  how to do it properly, it becomes second nature. ^_^  

Of course there are varying degrees of scenario difficulty. Attacks in scenarios that would test a veteran human player will be problematic for the AI, too. A good example of this is the CMSF2 (rarely played) Blue AI attack plan for 'House Cleaning SF2'. In the opening phase it performs about as well as an experienced human player, then the assault falls apart at about the same spot that human players tend to start having problems. But its fun to watch the AI trying its best up to that point.

Edited by MikeyD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frenchy56 said:

I think it's very unintuitive. In my opinion it would probably be more flexible if it could be used like the "Pop smoke" order, which would make it so your men don't fire their weapons unnecessarily (if the target is in direct line of sight) when the point is to flush out the enemies with the grenades, then use the weapons in close assault and/or if they start retreating. It could give you a better way to surprise your enemy.

I would also like to see more nuanced/flexible infantry combat, including better ways to use grenades to clear buildings and trenches. Hopefully one day..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
Quote

Designing a reasonable AI attack is extremely difficult

Well... designing a reasonable AI attack is as difficult as trying to parallel park a stick shift car without first learning how to drive stick. At first it seems impossible, but after you've learned  how to do it properly, it becomes second nature. ^_^  

Not talking about using the editor tools, I got that. But designing a believable and reasonably effective AI attack without massively stacking the deck in favour of the computer is very difficult to say the least.

I've played this game for about 6 years now, and I played many campaigns and scenarios made by some of the best designers, such as Paper Tiger. But even they can't quite make a convincing AI attack against the player as defender. This game works way better with the player as the attacker, taking out static positions, with maybe a fallback trigger or two.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Thanks for sharing, +1. Interesting. I thought walking into an ambush at 50m range would be certain death to most of the ambushed party within a couple of seconds, but of course reality is not always like I imagine.

Well, yes, you are certainly right, however, probably LESS certain death than hunkering down right in place to be picked off, or running backwards unable to return fire. So it's really more the case of the least terrible option. If you've been properly ambushed by someone who knew what they were doing, you are already in a world of hurt and it's really your only viable option, on the chance that their survival instinct is greater than yours and they break and run.

But yeah, overall you are right. It's a bad day no matter how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Older scenarios from the past, if you crack open the AI orders in the editor and take a peek you might conclude "Oh, this scenario designer didn't try very hard with these AI orders." You're not really experiencing all the AI can do.  A number of first generation CMSF1 scenarios were particularly rough because back during basegame Beta (13 years ago?) NOBODY had experience in the editor yet and the learning curve was pretty steep.

As a test, import a scenario into the editor. Look at the attacking side's AI instructions. You should be able to immediately tell if the scenario designer was trying to make it work. If an AI movement order directs the troops to 'assault' randomly to the middle of a distant open field try repainting it to moving them to covered positions instead. The fight is guaranteed to feel more challenging and believable with that one small change.

Edited by MikeyD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation got me curious so I fired up CMSF2 'House Cleaning' and played as Red. A very difficult Blue assault scenario for the AI so most people probably have never bothered playing the Red side. The Blue AI beat me! :o Actually did a better job in the battle than I had done when playing as Blue. Achieved the objective and won on points. Granted, I'm a pss-poor commander much of the time but still the AI did itself proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

I've played this game for about 6 years now, and I played many campaigns and scenarios made by some of the best designers, such as Paper Tiger. But even they can't quite make a convincing AI attack against the player as defender. This game works way better with the player as the attacker, taking out static positions, with maybe a fallback trigger or two.

I fully agree with this...

There are a bunch of reasons why designing GOOD AI attack scenarios is very difficult...close to impossible...I will mention a few here

1. The limited number of AI groups - In an AI defensive scenario large parts of the AI forces can remain static and only fall back (tacAI) ones forced to do so. In these scenarios 16 AI groups will often be enough to be able to add some 'mobile' defenders to the mix. In an AI attacking scenario pretty much the entire AI force will need to move forward. Requiring AI groups ! Very few scenarios sees the player commanding a force of less then a reduced company. If the AI is to attack against a force of that size it will probably mean something like a battalion sized force on the AI side. A force of that size means rather large AI groups. Rather large AI groups is not a good thing...simply because the AI can not handle it...

2. The inability of the AI to readjust its attack plan according to things happening on the battlefield - The AI have ONE way forward...and ONE way forward only. That is...the individual AI groups making up the AI attack have one way forward each. These AI groups will NEVER select a different way forward if they get into 'trouble'...simply because that option does not exist. They will move to their next waypoint regardless of how the battle evolves...or they will not move at all...This limitation is pretty severe !

3. Lack of supporting indirect fire - The scenario designers have a very limited ability to 'add' supporting fire to an AI attack. The functinality is simply not there. The designers may place a whole bunch of TRPS and forward observers on the AI side to hopefully get something half decently done by the AI itself but this is very random imo and half the time that the AI orders a bombardment they are just as likely to hit their own troops. the V4 update gave the designers some controll over the AI on-map mortars. But this is limited to HE only...no smoke. A small step in the right direction though...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd love to see the simple option to add a timing to a painted AI Target (the game's current preliminary bombardment method).....This could make a world of difference IMHO.

most certainly + 1 

And maybe also include a - wait for trigger - option to this (simular to the way AI orders currently work)...

Preferably i would like to see a complete remake of the entire AI artillery interface but something like this would indeed be a nice improvement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...