Jump to content
Falaise

hummm patche 4, I need your opinion

Recommended Posts

Having looked at the Deville example more closely, when the HE occurs 50m behind their position - their suppression meter doesn't register it at all. It's not until a few (5-10) seconds later, when under small arms fire, does it start to tick into green (2 lines) before ultimately filling up and causing an evasion later in the turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I stillI haven't noticed it in CMRT or CMBS....

I was playing BS last night and I had one US army scout section do the right thing, they where in the second floor of a building, they came under intense fire so they went down to the first floor out of harm's way, I though that was cool and was happy with that... Also I noticed one of my strykers came under RPG fire so it popped some smoke and retreated away from the firing unit, which I also thought was cool...

I've played alot of RT since the patch release, I didn't see this kind of behavior once... All the units I've seen retreating run away from the fire not towards it and thats only after I've poured overwhelming firepower at them...

I have only seen it in CMBN when low and high impassable  bocage is involved...

Anybody else seen anything like it in CMBS, CMRT or CMFI?

 

 

Edited by highlandcharge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scenario: Pleasently Shaded Woodland (WEGO - Iron)

Playing the Allies, I noticed, for the first time, the AI defender evading towards my positions and away from the AXIS friendly map edge. Rattled/Nervous defenders are charging through hedgerow gaps exposing themselves to small arms fire and then running back. I'd seen to odd occurrence in other scenarios but never to such an extent. I had to stop play as it was becoming an undeserved turkey-shoot.

I understand the evolution in AI Planning and Map Design over the years and this is not meant to pick on a scenario that likely hasn't been updated since release.

I'm more focused on the behavior of player controlled units. Thought I'd mention it as an aside.

As always, I have saves available. The Allied mortars have not been used for a good 5 minutes ever since the Sunken Lane was taken. The three teams are relocating. I mention this only because there was some discussion that the erratic evade behaviour could be linked to HE...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had much time to play with the new patch, but I think I just encountered the problem folks are talking about. I'm kicking the tires on one of Mark Ezra's excellently crafted "2019" series QB maps (thanks, Mark --beautiful work!) as the defending Germans. My guys have been hit with arty a number of times and they handled it very well. However, a burst of enemy small arms fire just triggered a suicidal move by one of my teams that can't be rationalized and looks like the potential issue being discussed.

As you can see, the team is regular, with a +1 leader and high motivation. They are on high ground behind a line of low bocage with the friendly map direction and foxholes right behind them and the enemy fire coming from the enemy map direction in front of them and from some advancing Americans to their right that have crossed the river.

32929916247_eff63e488a_b.jpg

 

The small arms fire causes them to panic, leave their cover,  and run out into the open down the slope toward the enemy.

46957944615_cbb6014f7a_b.jpg

 

This, despite the safety offered by foxholes and a building right behind them -- both in the friendly map direction.

32929916407_bcdb81bac9_b.jpg

 

As you can see, they are now in quite a pickle and the Americans waste no time in shooting them up. The leader being taken out first.

47874113421_7a60c37d28_b.jpg

 

There is no gap in the bocage/hedge line at this point and it looks like they exited into the open via the point where the low bocage touches the adjacent, passable hedge.

The suicide of this team is likely going to cause a ripple panic among nearby units and crumble what was a firm flank -- until this happened.🙁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question to all people that are seeing this behaviour, could you please open the editor and check if the formations are correctly displayed in the Units purchase screen? I have installed the patch 4.01 from 4.00 and I have seen this problem even if the game is launching fine. Not sure this have an impact on TacAI behaviour but I am reinstalling with the v4.01 full installer right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

Just one question to all people that are seeing this behaviour, could you please open the editor and check if the formations are correctly displayed in the Units purchase screen? I have installed the patch 4.01 from 4.00 and I have seen this problem even if the game is launching fine. Not sure this have an impact on TacAI behaviour but I am reinstalling with the v4.01 full installer right now.

Will do, in the meantime you can take a look at CW 18 Platoon, Deville, and Pleasently Shaded Woodlands which have all exhibited this evasion issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

Just one question to all people that are seeing this behaviour, could you please open the editor and check if the formations are correctly displayed in the Units purchase screen? I have installed the patch 4.01 from 4.00 and I have seen this problem even if the game is launching fine. Not sure this have an impact on TacAI behaviour but I am reinstalling with the v4.01 full installer right now.

This is an excellent thought. Had it happen to me recently in beta testing. A download was corrupted but playable. I didn't notice until I checked the unit selection. Bunch of misnamed units. I had to reinstall the game and then all was well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ncc1701e said:

Just one question to all people that are seeing this behaviour, could you please open the editor and check if the formations are correctly displayed in the Units purchase screen? I have installed the patch 4.01 from 4.00 and I have seen this problem even if the game is launching fine. Not sure this have an impact on TacAI behaviour but I am reinstalling with the v4.01 full installer right now.

50 minutes ago, MarkEzra said:

This is an excellent thought. Had it happen to me recently in beta testing. A download was corrupted but playable. I didn't notice until I checked the unit selection. Bunch of misnamed units. I had to reinstall the game and then all was well.

What sort of thing should we look for?  I'm not seeing anything obvious at first glance.  :unsure:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes with bad patching you end up with rifle squads named things like "Wooden bunker" or Bradleys being "Panzergrenadier HQ". That kind of thing.

That's not a problem at this end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

What sort of thing should we look for?  I'm not seeing anything obvious at first glance.  :unsure:

 

Well, sorry I have forgotten to take a screenshot with the problem. But, in the below screenshot (version 4.01 from full installer) for example "Infantry" was replaced by something like "King Tiger" inside the red circle.

deKLd.png

Edited by ncc1701e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Howler said:

Will do, in the meantime you can take a look at CW 18 Platoon, Deville, and Pleasently Shaded Woodlands which have all exhibited this evasion issue.

Will have a look now at CW 18 Platoon with my complete reinstallation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Macisle said:

I haven't had much time to play with the new patch, but I think I just encountered the problem folks are talking about. I'm kicking the tires on one of Mark Ezra's excellently crafted "2019" series QB maps (thanks, Mark --beautiful work!) as the defending Germans. My guys have been hit with arty a number of times and they handled it very well. However, a burst of enemy small arms fire just triggered a suicidal move by one of my teams that can't be rationalized and looks like the potential issue being discussed.

As you can see, the team is regular, with a +1 leader and high motivation. They are on high ground behind a line of low bocage with the friendly map direction and foxholes right behind them and the enemy fire coming from the enemy map direction in front of them and from some advancing Americans to their right that have crossed the river.

32929916247_eff63e488a_b.jpg

 

The small arms fire causes them to panic, leave their cover,  and run out into the open down the slope toward the enemy.

46957944615_cbb6014f7a_b.jpg

 

This, despite the safety offered by foxholes and a building right behind them -- both in the friendly map direction.

32929916407_bcdb81bac9_b.jpg

 

As you can see, they are now in quite a pickle and the Americans waste no time in shooting them up. The leader being taken out first.

47874113421_7a60c37d28_b.jpg

 

There is no gap in the bocage/hedge line at this point and it looks like they exited into the open via the point where the low bocage touches the adjacent, passable hedge.

The suicide of this team is likely going to cause a ripple panic among nearby units and crumble what was a firm flank -- until this happened.🙁

AI pathing orders in this QB Map may be what you are seeing.  What you need to know:

All QB Attack/Defend Maps Have have two sets of defender AI orders for each Objective.  One is Always stationary...no movement order  The second always has a variable timed movement order and is the counter-attack force. 

I your game this MAY be what has happened.  Why not send me a save file and see if this is the case.  If it's the map I think it is and the location on the map I think it is, and  the game time count is what I think it is.... well you get the picture.   The AI unit's will follow their orders and move from Ambush/concealment positions and move towards objectives Almost always forward into the enemy.   markDOTezra3591ATgmailDOTcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MarkEzra said:

AI pathing orders in this QB Map may be what you are seeing.  What you need to know:

All QB Attack/Defend Maps Have have two sets of defender AI orders for each Objective.  One is Always stationary...no movement order  The second always has a variable timed movement order and is the counter-attack force. 

I your game this MAY be what has happened.  Why not send me a save file and see if this is the case.  If it's the map I think it is and the location on the map I think it is, and  the game time count is what I think it is.... well you get the picture.   The AI unit's will follow their orders and move from Ambush/concealment positions and move towards objectives Almost always forward into the enemy.   markDOTezra3591ATgmailDOTcom

Thanks, Mark. I'm the defending Germans in this one. The AI is controlling the attacking Americans. I just sent you a copy of the turn replay.

I did a quick check in the Editor and didn't see any problems with the unit formations. -Will report if I find any.

Edited by Macisle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just joining the chorus in the hopes something will be done about it fairly quickly: I'm also seeing this "fleeing towards the enemy by way of the nearest hedgerow gap" behavior in CMBN.  Disappointing.

Waiting 2.5 years for a patch to fix highly questionable infantry behavior under fire only to see it introduce ANOTHER form of highly questionable behavior?  Geez-o-man.  Between that, the CMFI patch zapping the Fallschirmjaeger uniforms, and complete silence as to the alleged upcoming modules for CMRT and CMFI, 2019 has so far been a rough year for BF and its fans.  I truly hope the year ends on a far better note. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Macisle @MarkEzra Looking at this picture:

47874113421_7a60c37d28_b.jpg

It seems there is a depression in the terrain ahead of that German team that would provide concealment from the current US position.....So if it's not a scripted AI move, might the team be attempting to utilise that cover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That would be my assumption - as with the Roadblock example, it looks as though the team is making what it considers to be a sensible move to cover, which ends up being suicidal along the way.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that the AI avoidance behaviour in 4.01 is significantly better than in 4.0.

Edited by domfluff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the suggestion that the AI is considering terrain elevation for cover, even if it requires temporary exposure. that is not necessarily the case for armor. I remember this one example in CMSF2: A CV90 under my control was positioned halfway on a hillside, the hillside was facing the enemy. There was no safe hillside on that particular hill, because it was on the edge of the map. Now the CV90 spotted a stationary enemy IFV. The CV90's automatic AI response was to back away, up the hill. This exposed him way more and was not a smart move. I tried to override the move and force him in the direction of the enemy but down the hill: The CV90 refused. The only thing that worked was to take the green reverse order and point it downhill/towards enemy. So the CV90 was then turning around on an exposed position and going to safety in reverse.

I made a quick sketch.

armor-evade.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Also, it's worth pointing out that the AI avoidance behaviour in 4.01 is significantly better than in 4.0.

I've only noticed the issue, once localized to foxholes and such, become a more generalized one effecting any small arms fire and terrain.

Unfortunately, I simply do not know what issue(s) were corrected in CMBN v4.00 and can't share your appreciation on this matter.

This was discussed when SF2 was released. It's mitigated there by simply 'opening' close terrain (eg by leveling structures) with the plentiful destructive firepower most formations have. I assume it's WAD and not deemed to be an issue, as to the best of my knowledge, there will be no further work on SF2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 4:56 AM, Macisle said:

I haven't had much time to play with the new patch, but I think I just encountered the problem folks are talking about. I'm kicking the tires on one of Mark Ezra's excellently crafted "2019" series QB maps (thanks, Mark --beautiful work!) as the defending Germans. My guys have been hit with arty a number of times and they handled it very well. However, a burst of enemy small arms fire just triggered a suicidal move by one of my teams that can't be rationalized and looks like the potential issue being discussed.

As you can see, the team is regular, with a +1 leader and high motivation. They are on high ground behind a line of low bocage with the friendly map direction and foxholes right behind them and the enemy fire coming from the enemy map direction in front of them and from some advancing Americans to their right that have crossed the river.

32929916247_eff63e488a_b.jpg

 

The small arms fire causes them to panic, leave their cover,  and run out into the open down the slope toward the enemy.

46957944615_cbb6014f7a_b.jpg

 

This, despite the safety offered by foxholes and a building right behind them -- both in the friendly map direction.

32929916407_bcdb81bac9_b.jpg

 

As you can see, they are now in quite a pickle and the Americans waste no time in shooting them up. The leader being taken out first.

47874113421_7a60c37d28_b.jpg

 

There is no gap in the bocage/hedge line at this point and it looks like they exited into the open via the point where the low bocage touches the adjacent, passable hedge.

The suicide of this team is likely going to cause a ripple panic among nearby units and crumble what was a firm flank -- until this happened.🙁

@Macisle  Thank you for posting and especially sending me a save file.  First I gotta say... Glad the AI and me are giving your boys a good fight!  Now that I have that out of my system here are results of my elevation review:  As you can see your Axis units are the x in the red circle... elevation 21.  Your Allied attackers are in several locations.  But it appeared to me some pretty effective fire came from across the river Elevation 23.  Behind your units the elevation increases to elevation 22.  Your 2 units under fire attempted to evade. one ended up back in those foxholes.  the other sought lower elevation tiles and died trying.  But I think we can all agree retreating North was all uphill. I took a good look at that House.  Why wouldn't they just go there?  While it offers good cover and concealment, it's a long way to run over open ground while under accurate automatic weapons fire from higher ground. Those poor lads had three bad choices... and the dice got rolled.  

ON A SIDE NOTE: My beta testing job is to provide my observations with supporting documents.  My job is not to provide my personal opinion... BUT if you would allow me a slip of the tongue here.  I get what I'm seeing seems counter intuitive... but it just makes such good sense when I examined that map.  I been testing war games for 20 years.  Over that time I've learned that it's Never about who's right but What's right that matters.  That's why player questions and feed back matters.  Thank you.

 

 

Rural River 2D map.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bocage banzais in new CMBN 4.01 patch

I have attached an example of an AI German defending unit running through a bocage gap directly towards enemy fire.
To replicate, load file and press replay.  At around 46 second mark, observe German squad on the West edge of the map behind Tall bocage take fire and then run through the gap towards enemy fire, with predictable results! 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctym4em0eimbpj7/The Scottish Corridor 008.zip?dl=0

This is a campaign game save file. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, MarkEzra said:

@Macisle  Thank you for posting and especially sending me a save file.  First I gotta say... Glad the AI and me are giving your boys a good fight!  Now that I have that out of my system here are results of my elevation review:  As you can see your Axis units are the x in the red circle... elevation 21.  Your Allied attackers are in several locations.  But it appeared to me some pretty effective fire came from across the river Elevation 23.  Behind your units the elevation increases to elevation 22.  Your 2 units under fire attempted to evade. one ended up back in those foxholes.  the other sought lower elevation tiles and died trying.  But I think we can all agree retreating North was all uphill. I took a good look at that House.  Why wouldn't they just go there?  While it offers good cover and concealment, it's a long way to run over open ground while under accurate automatic weapons fire from higher ground. Those poor lads had three bad choices... and the dice got rolled.  

ON A SIDE NOTE: My beta testing job is to provide my observations with supporting documents.  My job is not to provide my personal opinion... BUT if you would allow me a slip of the tongue here.  I get what I'm seeing seems counter intuitive... but it just makes such good sense when I examined that map.  I been testing war games for 20 years.  Over that time I've learned that it's Never about who's right but What's right that matters.  That's why player questions and feed back matters.  Thank you.

 

 

Rural River 2D map.jpg

 

11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

@Macisle @MarkEzra Looking at this picture:

47874113421_7a60c37d28_b.jpg

It seems there is a depression in the terrain ahead of that German team that would provide concealment from the current US position.....So if it's not a scripted AI move, might the team be attempting to utilise that cover?

I think you guys are right about the TacAI logic used here. I finished up the battle and...the team survived! Only the leader bought it when they first displaced. I managed to get enough bodies on the line to prevent the GIs from concentrating their fire on the gully team. One of my reinforcement teams was an HMG and over a few turns fire superiority went my way on that flank and I held it. I had to work it though! The 3-man rifle team ended up being vital, as they were properly falling back to the foxholes when things got too hot. I kept sending them up the the low bocage line to draw fire to take the heat off the other units.  That appeared to be just enough to let the HMG team get set up.There was a movie moment when a US command team out of LOS suddenly crested the hill while the rifleman trio was back in their foxholes. They traded fire and the trio lobbed a grenade at the HQ team before German medium range LMG fire finished off the rest of the charging Amis.

Which reminds me, the gully team did fall back to the foxholes at least once earlier. I can definitely see the TacAI logic here in terms of the elevations. However, from a realism standpoint, I can't see a team charging out in the open like that, unless they were being flanked and their rear was compromised. I think in real life they would almost certainly go for the foxholes. That's actually precisely why I put them there in setup.

So, it seems like we have a situation where the TacAI is performing nearly perfectly most of the time, but then suddenly brainfarts and falls on its sword over a technicality.  In this situation, falling back to the foxholes was the "perfect" behavior, which the 3-man rifle team did at least 3 times and the gully team did at least once early on. Then, the gully team brainfarted on best choice of cover -- choosing the depression for "relief" from the most pressing enemy team, and in so doing, losing the much better general protection of the foxholes.

For my part, I'd really like to see if BF can somehow cut that brainfarting. As we see, the TacAI is getting it right most of the time, which means the code is getting it right most of the time. However, when it gets it wrong, it blows the immersion because it seems so out of place in terms of realism. Is there not a way to tweak the code so that the TacAI will put more weight on things like friendly side and foxhole/cover locations? As people have pointed out, this seems to have been a case of the TacAI overvaluing the gully at the expense of better cover. Is there any way to tweak it so it doesn't?

Other than the saga of the gully team, TacAI movement seemed very good for both infantry and vehicles. There were a number of epic moments (I wish I had time to do a viddy!). The battle ended with the last Ami tank charging in on the other flank just at the moment when my Stug freaked out over approaching infantry and suddenly backed away from its overwatch position. The Sherman was pointed right at my remaining LMG teams on that side and was about to shoot them up when...one of my alamo PF teams hiding behind a building saved the day. It was beautiful.🙂

It was an excellent little battle. In hindsight, I may have overdone it with the mines, TRPs and 105mm. They wreaked havoc. However, I certainly had the chance of being overrun and wiped out and really had to work it with my micro-play at a number of points. The US started with a company of infantry, plus the battalion pioneer platoon. Dispersed among the platoons, they had 5 Shermans, 2 Stuarts, and 2 gun carriages. They also had a beefy amount of arty. I had one grenadier platoon with an attached Pak40, one regular Stug, the company HMG squad, an FO and one battery of medium howitzers.

The US had two approaches, (my) far left and far right. On the left, I put most of my AP mines (4, IIRC) at the river crossing, along with my single AT mine. To cover that side, I had the ATG, my best infantry squad, and the platoon HQ team. On the right flank, I had two infantry squads, my single PS, and the Stug. The 2 HMGs and their HQ team were in the center with keyhole fire positions to keep them safe from enemy AFV overwatch. Their initial job was to deal with any  infiltrators and serve as the infantry fire brigade. The FO was forward center in a building with the best view.

The battle started out with the US pioneers and gun carriages pushing on my left flank. My FO and the ATG dealt with that handily. The AI then backed it up with the Stuarts and more infantry. The Pak40 knocked out the Stuarts, but then the US landed a howitzer round right in the pickle-barrel and knocked out the ATG. US arty kept my boys heads down there and some US infantry infiltrated along the riverside woods and fed into my center (good job, AI Plan!). My center HMGs then relocated to deal with them, but things devolved into a close range standoff with remaining US strength there unknown and any movement looking risky. The US units that made it to the center appeared to be the weapons teams (light mortars were off map). The right flank was quiet.

Shermans then showed up in the center and finished locking down my HMGs and the FO (more kudos to the AI Plan!). I didn't know if they would go left or right. My left was down to PFs AT-wise , so I decided to relocate the Stug to center to make it better available to deal with the enemy's advance when it decided to make a move. My PS was in the building on the right, serving as a ranged AT screen for any tanks attempting to cross there.

During the mid-battle period, the Stug stayed out of LOS in the center while new Shermans showed up on the left and moved to overwatch positions there. The center Shermans stayed put and some US infantry started filtering towards my right. For awhile, it went like this:

On the left flank, US infantry filtered in with Sherman overwatch. My two LMG teams there (one was the ATG ammo team) played cat and mouse to disrupt the advancing GIs while avoiding Sherman response. Meanwhile, the squad command team and platoon HQ stayed in ambush positions using buildings and foxholes. Both sides exchanged arty fire on that flank. A Sherman got one shot in that took out two men in the infantry LMG team, but the US arty was largely ineffective due to my proactive micro-work.

On the right flank, my two squads exchanged fire with the Amis and US arty occasionally forced everyone to take cover.

The Stug stayed out of sight at center while I called in arty on the overwatching center Shermans. I was tempted to try to take them out with the Stug, but judged that the risk was too high of a Sherman landing the first shot from the available angles (nearly frontal). I decided to peel off a PF anti-tank team from a squad on the right flank and send it center. Initially, it would team with the Stug for better eyes and then move left, if needed, for AT coverage on that flank.

After the first couple of harrassing rounds landed near the center Shermans, one started to shift to my right flank, as if to support a crossing effort there. That gave me the chance I was looking for. I was able to move the Stug at center unbuttoned into a keyhole overwatch position, along with the adjacent PF team for extra eyes. I had just enough time to get the Stug into position before the Sherman entered the keyhole. Spotting was a bit iffier than I hoped, but the Stug eventually got LOS and smoked him. Then, the next Sherman followed and met the same fate.

Meanwhile, on the left flank, a Sherman pushed forward across the river and ate a mine. I judged that it was safe to relocate the Stug to the left flank now, so I sent him there via the safest back route, with the PF team following along later.

It was around this point that the right flank infantry battle heated up, leading to the gully team incident.

On the left, the Stug got into position.

The end-game period went like this:

On the right, I moved one of the now unlocked HMG teams to provide support. The other HMG team and its HQ stayed center, but I eventually moved the center HMG a bit left to provide fire support against US infantry infiltrating on that flank. The HQ stayed to monitor unknown infiltration center.

The right flank battle was touch and go for awhile after the gully team did its thing. But, by carefully micro-managing a depleted LMG team in an overwatch building (no LOS to the Amis that shot the gully team leader), the PS team, and the newly arrived HMG team, I was able to hold the flank.

On the left, things got dicey with two Shermans making it across past the mines and US infantry putting pressure on my infantry there. Oh, and I forgot... Earlier, an amazing long range rifle shot from the US infantry at center took out my platoon leader as his team was displacing across the road. Grrr!

Anyway,  my guys were in alamo keyhole positions there with the Stug obliquely covering the road up from the river from semi-hull down, offering a good chance of first shot. Eventually, a Sherman charged forward and the Stug took it out, right before it was about to slaughter my LMG teams.

Then, just as the final Sherman was making its push, US infantry spooked the Stug and it backed out of LOS. The Sherman charged right into my alamo and one round would have been enough to wreak havoc, as all the available PFs were just out of range. All, but one that is. the last two men of the platoon HQ had one PF and they were hiding behind a building beside the Sherman. They made the shot. My LMG teams, now safe, joined the HQ men in taking out the bailing tank crew.

The Americans then surrendered.

I know the story is a bit off-topic, but hearing AARs from battles played on a designer's map is chicken soup for the designing soul, so I thought I'd post it.

It was a fun battle and though I got a TV, it could have gone very differently. Oh, and the center threat turned out to be a ghost threat. The Amis there were all dead!

Edited by Macisle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to sburke's advice i installed 4.01 in parallel of 4.00
and as I have a little time I did a test
I chose sticking it out
I play wego with the Germans
flat terrain

behind the low hurdle in the middle of the Canadian, there is an adjacent passage

190524102542398777.jpg

the stug fires

190524102534183430.jpg

as soon as canadiens move

190524102556669991.jpg

same action life of Canadian positions
behind the hedge

190524102622512525.jpg

immediately after the shot they move

190524102633248504.jpg

to the armored !!!

190524102649395684.jpg

at the end of the lap they are in bad position

190524102657462546.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone point me in the direction of the 4.01 full installers? All I can find is the 4.0 full installer and the 4.01 patch for the various games.

I've also experienced some of this weird behaviour since installing 4.01. In the CMBN campaign "Kampfgruppe Engel" I noticed on the 3rd battle, the one where you have to recover the Tiger II and then do a fighting withdrawal off the map, I put a pre-start 81mm mortar (Harass, medium ammo expenditure) barrage on a hedgerow a few fields forward of the Tiger where I assumed there'd be US Infantry. So after the first few turns my infantry platoon was at the opposing hedgerow and after a few seconds spotted roughly two US infantry squads (casualties had been taken from the mortar barrage) which looked like they were cowering out in the middle of the field between the two hedgerows, where they were of course mowed down within seconds by my infantry.

I thought 'that is strange' and reloaded the mission and did the same thing again, but did not put a mortar barrage down on the US hedgerow, and when I arrived at the opposing hedgerow, there were no US infantry out cowering in the middle of the field, I then fired on the US hedgerow, to where I received return fire from roughly two squads of infantry.

I then started up my CMBN 3.xx version of the game and replayed the campaign up until this point again, and tried doing the same thing, both with the mortar barrage and without. This time the US Infantry did not route out towards my side of the map and into an open field and cower after the barrage, they stayed and either cowered/took cover behind the hedgerow or they retreated back towards the Tiger II (towards their own side of the map)I did not notice it on the first two battles of the campaign, although it is harder to see what the enemy is doing and how they're reacting to you in those fights.

I've also noticed squads seem to bug out a lot quicker when they're under fire, compared to CM 3.xx, just in general, different armies across different campaigns across different CM games, no specific situation or scenario.

That's all I've noticed as far as 'odd behaviour' goes since the patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I've not been able to play a scenario where I did not see this 'problematic' behaviour manifest.  I don't bother posting further on this matter thinking there's enough already for  the developer to action.

My latest involved an ambush in woods leading to comical displacements from both sides towards respective enemy positions leading to another (IMHO) unwarranted turkey-shoot. Most of my casualties where caused when a lone team decided to decamp to a clear AS towards the ambushee. While the Axis side lost a platoon worth when they first evaded towards my positions and any survivors would then try to run back and away allowing me to continue firing at exposed troops.

I do have another (different scenario) save involving a rush toward known firing positions from a stationary team positioned behind hedges (elevation 30) to an  open/clear AS containing a single shell hole (elevation 30). Any survivors would then run back and away from enemy contacts.

It seems to me that it's the generation of the initial evasion waypoint that is broken. I only say this because any survivors will then, usually, run back and away from known contacts. My stuff involves small arms and any HE a team (or squad) carries (grenades/demo/etc.).

Some had reported similar 'problematic' evasions occurring with CMSF2. In the modern titles, it's over quickly and doesn't lead to several minutes worth of troops getting lit up and; therefore, more easily ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...