Jump to content
Lt Bull

Need odd LOS issue looked at

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, IanL said:

That sure looks like a prefect example of the bug. I have questions:

Do you have a save? A .ema turn file would be good.

What scenario or QB map is this (would like to try to make it happen again)?

Did you start this game using 4.02 version of the game?

Please PM me and we can discuss getting the saved turn.

PS I wrote this upon reading your first post about this and will not finish reading the rest of this thread - apologies if you have already answered any of my questions.

Hi Ian,

Happy to oblige and thanks for looking in to this.  I have the .ema files, the scenario is called "A Nasty Surprise", we are using 4.02.  I will PM you.

Regards

Bull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can concur, anecdotally I am still seeing this issue occasionally in multiple titles (though still most frequently and obviously with the bocage of CMBN). As RockinHarry stated: 'many unit "retreats" in fact are self applied "evade" commands' and to me they sometimes occur without much incoming fire or notable decrease in morale.  I've seen it in real time games where if you spot the evade command been auto-generated you can grab the command line and move it's end point back to a more suitable location rather than the auto-generated one.  On a positive note I just tried 18 platoon scenario against the AI (again) and had to chase the last enemy squad from one side of the map to the other as they kept retreating away from my 3 squads who were chasing them and putting constant fire on them! So the TAC AI generated evade  command can work amazingly well sometimes. BTW the last enemy soldier surrendered in the end (I think he go tired of running) :)

 

Edited by weta_nz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 I am still seeing this issue occasionally in multiple titles 

yep I am seeing the issue in other titles too, most recently in CMRT

Edited by PIATpunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, weta_nz said:

I can concur, anecdotally I am still seeing this issue occasionally in multiple titles (though still most frequently and obviously with the bocage of CMBN). As RockinHarry stated: 'many unit "retreats" in fact are self applied "evade" commands' and to me they sometimes occur without much incoming fire or notable decrease in morale.  I've seen it in real time games where if you spot the evade command been auto-generated you can grab the command line and move it's end point back to a more suitable location rather than the auto-generated one.  On a positive note I just tried 18 platoon scenario against the AI (again) and had to chase the last enemy squad from one side of the map to the other as they kept retreating away from my 3 squads who were chasing them and putting constant fire on them! So the TAC AI generated evade  command can work amazingly well sometimes. BTW the last enemy soldier surrendered in the end (I think he go tired of running) :)

 

agree. The evade command ain´t all bad, both when the TacAI does, or just for player checking perceived threats on individual units (instant command evade, then check waypoint and face, then delete again). Sometimes one can follow the blue face line exactly to an opposing unit (if it has not moved yet), which sometimes turns out beeing bits of a surprise. So what the player thinks is an enemy threat and the TacAI can be two different things. Otherwise would be nice if any possible bugs involved here can be squashed very soon. Beside mentioned move mode and path variables, there might be more things involved worth checking. Like isolation (from friendlies), lack of C2 or just having a doomed minus leader in evading unit. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 9:30 AM, Lt Bull said:

Back again...

If the "rattled, break cover, run towards enemey" incident I mentioned earlier (in passing) that occured in this PBEM was not a good example of the very same issue others are reporting, then this one that just happened in the same PBEM is a very good example:

https://streamable.com/ils2p

Infantry are located behind a hedge on an slightly elevated ridge (the ground gently sloopes down behind them in to an open field in defilade). They are directly facing the enemy map edge, with the friendly map edge behind them. No movement orders were given. The only orders were to target an enemy infantry unit to the front left.  Halfway through the infantry unit takes fire from the same front left direction. The immediate reaction of some of the men in the unit is to break cover and run directly forward through the hedgeline, toward.  The remianing men initially  stay behind the hedge and cower (probably safer), but eventually get up and run through the hedgeline like the original guys did.  They are just lucky that not even one of them was hit when they broke cover as they were fully exposed (well there is always next turn)

You can see a low stone wall about 15m in front of them but they literaly have to cross open terrain, running through enemy fire to get there. It is not clear if under this situation whether there behaviour was influenced by this "alternate" (more desirable?) nearby cover.

To be honest, there are actually two other cases I could show that have happened in this PBEM that share the same fundamental characteristic: "rattled" infantry in cover breaking cover and inexplicably running towards the enemy map edge (with more disasterous results). 

If the TacAI that kicks in controlling the behaviour of this "rattled" infantry unit is meant to be a "self-preservation" reaction to the enemy fire, perhaps the code is somehow not taking in to consideration the following information: Location, distance and safest route to nearest defilade and/or cover (in this case, defilade about 6 metres behind them, albeit in open terrain ). In the heirachy of possible directions a "rattled"  unit can move to "increase it's survivability", you surely would expect the "default"/all things equal/no-brainer go-to direction to be move in would be "away" from the enemy, or towards friendly lines.  There would need to be some pretty compeling circumstatnces at play if that "safer" direction/route/path led them closer to the enemy.

Maybe the TacAI coding is placing too much emphasis on the percieved cover at "the destination" and not considering the path/route/distance and the danger to the unit in getting there.

Regardless this recent new post-upgrade behaviour we are now seeing with infantry "running towards the enemy" appears to be "a thing" not previosly seen or considered a problem prior.  I hope it gets addressed.

some more little details I noticed in the video. Once the small HE from the AA vehicle hits the team location they go down to cower. For a moment the No2 of the team does some "planning" and then immdeiately starts moving with his rifle AT buddy (No3) toward that wall. Leader and No4 still in cower, likely not quite noticing what´s going on. Since I assume a TacAI initiated "evade" move, the final face command would be of interest. A possibility of the 2 guys bugging out forward might also be gaining an improved position in order to deal with the AA vehicle by means of a  rifle AT grenade in somewhat better cover position.  The team leader beeing a +1 might support that idea, indicating that move was more offensive and less defensive. Regarding face command I oftenly find it worth rereading the manual since face is a bit more complicated than just "look at":

FACE

Infantry - issuing a Face command will cause the soldiers of the unit to re-evaluate
the cover provided by the surrounding terrain in relation to the facing the player
has indicated, and, if better cover is available, to move to that cover. For example,
the unit might move around a wall, or house corner, to face the new direction
while maximizing cover against fire coming from that direction. You can issue a
Face Command to a unit in motion as well. If you do so, then the last waypoint
will be automatically highlighted so the Face Command will apply to that last
waypoint, not the current position. You are also able to manually select a waypoint
(any waypoint, not just the last one) and issue a Face order from there however.

Note: the Face command is “absolute” to the point you
click on the map, not “relative” to the position of
the unit at the time that you click. An example: You
issue a Face command to a moving unit by clicking
on a house in the distance. When the unit reaches its
final waypoint, it will turn to face the house.

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...