Jump to content
Falaise

hummm patche 4, I need your opinion

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, highlandcharge said:

IMHO this is not a bug but just panicky behavior, all the other times I have seen infantry retreat in game they have retreated away from fire and towards there side of the map....

In CMBN, it is common for infantry to evade towards enemy contacts and away from the designated friendly map edge. Whatever survives will then either evade back to their original position or slightly beside it. Should they need to evade again - this cycle is repeated. These 'laps' are frustrating when one considers the two plus year wait for a correction to a related matter involving units decamping fortified positions too easily.

This 'problematic'  pathfinding was reported first in CMSF2 whereby it was deemed there would not be a corrective patch. Instead it should be considered either a good war story or learn to play around it. Because the modern titles are more lethal - it is rare a team will survive and thus more easily ignored (no 'laps' are seen).

8 pages into this thread and I still don't know if it's a LTP (learn to play) moment and this is the new normal...

It may be more apparent in the CMBN maps being first generation and not benefiting from the newer AI facilities nor the workaround regarding elevation unless updated in some manner.

As I still have no idea what factors (other than elevation?) are considered when a unit decides to evade - there's no need for me to post further. I've yet to play a stock scenario where this didn't happen.

We are 4+ weeks post patch so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Howler said:

This 'problematic'  pathfinding was reported first in CMSF2 whereby it was deemed there would not be a corrective patch. Instead it should be considered either a good war story or learn to play around it. Because the modern titles are more lethal - it is rare a team will survive and thus more easily ignored (no 'laps' are seen).

Please can you provide a link to examples of this behaviour in CM:SF2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Please can you provide a link to examples of this behaviour in CM:SF2?

 

Demo related

 

Release

Again, not knowing the factors involved in determining evasion other than to note it is different from the calculation that takes place during the command phase. Hitting the Evade during the orders phase will only rarely place the waypoint in front and towards enemy contacts. During playback, a unit which would have shown a 'sensible' path back and away during the orders - will instead place this waypoint in a different spot. This is true for stationary units. For moving ones, you expect a deviation as they are in a different AS when it hits the fan...

In CMBN, you can see this by reloading the orders phase, click the Evade to see the spot the 'problem' unit will take. It will most likely be sensible and away from known contacts at this point. Cancel the evade order and hit the red button to generate the turn. The unit in question will instead run forward as per the posts in this thread.

The  behaviour as first reported in the demo is what we have in CMSF2. We have an LTP (learn to play) for it and accept it as the new normal.

It seems more prevalent in CMBN and I'm waiting to see if it too is intended to be the new normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

There doesn't actually seem to be a consensus view that there is an issue in any of those threads.

Correct.

Will this thread be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there is definitely a problem in CMBN, I have seen infantry run through gaps in bocage towards MG fire and get wiped out... So I have stopped playing it..

But I have not come across the same problem in CMRT and CMFI, and I have played them quite a lot since the patches...

 

Share this post


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

For me there is definitely a problem in CMBN, I have seen infantry run through gaps in bocage towards MG fire and get wiped out... So I have stopped playing it..

Personally I've taken to using the permanent 'Pause' option.....It's not 100% reliable but it does mitigate the issue somewhat (it's probably good practice generally TBH, a bit like the platoon leader saying "Stay here, do not move.....No matter what happens.").

4 hours ago, highlandcharge said:

But I have not come across the same problem in CMRT and CMFI, and I have played them quite a lot since the patches...

Nor me, especially not in CM:SF2 and I spend a lot of time in CM:SF2, usually doing really horrible things to my pixeltruppen.....Like this:

leyp3fg.jpg

All things considered, they seem remarkably resilient to me.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Personally I've taken to using the permanent 'Pause' option...

Unfortunately, this does nothing to help the computer player. While it's quite frustrating when it happens to your own guys - it becomes unplayable when it happens to the AI player. There's not much point in continuing to play when the only computer controlled troops not running 'cycles' are those in trenches and foxholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, again, I think this may have more to do with the slight depression in the terrain there - it may be the closest cover. 

It's exactly the same behaviour as that reported at the start of this thread, but that doesn't mean that nothing has changed.

Share this post


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

Now, again, I think this may have more to do with the slight depression in the terrain there - it may be the closest cover. 

It's exactly the same behaviour as that reported at the start of this thread, but that doesn't mean that nothing has changed.

Correct more than one tester could not reproduce the problem using their test case. 4.01 showed the problem for them -> 4.02 did not. The thing with the Tac AI decisions is there is no way to make a "that will never happen again" statement.

Having said that - I am disappointed that you were able to hit it so fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah Ive hit it to, in fact I think its worse, I started a new game, the first mission in the Scottish corridor campaign... I have 2 British squads running through a short hedge evading towards the German fire and side of the map... 

I would upload a save but the limit on the forum is a bit small...

 

 

Edited by highlandcharge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, IanL said:

Correct more than one tester could not reproduce the problem using their test case. 4.01 showed the problem for them -> 4.02 did not. The thing with the Tac AI decisions is there is no way to make a "that will never happen again" statement.

Having said that - I am disappointed that you were able to hit it so fast.

Not wanting to shoot the messenger but I would have thought the more than a single test case would be used to verify fitness. Were any of the save games provided not used for verification?

No one has stated that this issue should be completely eliminated. We just want it to be uncommon if not rare. War stories are made of such rare occurrences and something we all appreciate of the game.

Being able to see teams cycling to and fro towards danger more often than not - does not make for a good game experience IMHO.

I don't see the point of applying this patch until the overarching 'evade' issue is addressed.

While I am appointed,  I'm encouraged by the timely response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if I repeat myself, apart from running under artillery fire, I find the behavior of 4.00 very realistic
with 4.01 and now 4.02, the fact of running towards the opponent as soon as a soldier is hit is totally unrealistic. I also noticed a generalization to use all the door for enter a batriment including the side subjected to fire

why not correct only that behavior under the artillery ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

also seeing same behaviour as 4.01  - I started a fresh Scottish corridor campaign with 4.02 and within 4 turns the German outposts are running towards my positions... (see western edge of map for behaviour)  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gta5hjdn9abpofk/The Scottish Corridor 003.bts?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mb6a5awjxpwwuhg/The Scottish Corridor 004.bts?dl=0

 

Edited by PIATpunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen an improvement with the fleeing behavior.  I had a fire team hunting along hedgerow, received fire, took one casualty, and then ran away from the enemy fire.  So, this patch appears to have limited some of that behavior.  Has it eliminated it?  From other posters, doesn't sound like it, but in my experience it's an improvement over 4.01.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi 3J2m, the best is to test, me I have 4.00 and 4.02 now on my computer
Roadblock test or any scenario that you know well


hello Heirloom_Tomato
on Roadblock you reproduce it immediately. if the gun is next to the bridge, place a squad on either side of the hole in the hedge
if the gun shoot the hedge, immediately the squad will rush into the field towards the Germans
to tell the truth, it works as soon as there is a hedge
when you progress from hedge to hedge on the right of the road, this also happens with even laughable situation when German and American rush towards each other in the same field

Edited by Falaise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it always an explosion that triggers this or does small arms fire do it too?

If it is only explosions, what side of the hedge are they actually taking place and do the units affected have LOS to the gun (or whatever caused the explosion)?  Could they be fleeing an unknown and unexpected explosion in their vicinity by what they perceive as the most direct route?  :unsure:

Just a thought.

Share this post


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

Hi 3J2m, the best is to test, me I have 4.00 and 4.02 now on my computer
Roadblock test or any scenario that you know well

Merci Steph je vais m'en tenir â ce que tu me dit, je ne joue pas a CM pour l'instant et ce depuis plusieurs jours voir semaine car j'essaye plusieurs autres jeux comme Graviteam, Call to arms... mais jattends surtout la sortie du nouveau CM R4V et je reste donc branché des nouvelles sur le forum. 

Share this post


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

@domfluff and @Falaisecan you please send me your turn or let me know the scenario you are seeing this happen in? @PIATpunk I loaded your turns and am seeing what you see. I loaded the same campaign, and while it took me a few tries, 4 attempts actually, I was able to replicate it.

The precise replication is in this thread: 


In the CMBN "Roadblock" tutorial mission, having the squad move to *one space to the left* of the gap in the bocage.

Then just letting things run. They'll start taking fire, and in a few turns will (almost always) run forward to a spot which is slightly depressed.

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...