The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[Spook]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

My only complaint is that often times CMBB scenarios have time limits designed for the over-robust infantry model of CMBO.

That quote from Cribtop Gamer is my present impression too, at least of scenarios set at 25 turns or less. But it depends of course on the map size.

[Battlefront.com]

Tarqulene,

Yes, I for one can accept that the orders options don't always have "just the right thing" for each and every situation. This is more a limitation of human interface with machine than anything else. Just so much that the player is willing to deal with. That being said, the engine rewrite will address this issue as part of a larger shift towards SOPs (Standard Operating Practices). No more details available at this moment because we haven't designed it in detail yet

Vanir,

The first issue is how quickly units, particularly units that have taken no casualties, go from pinned to panic/broken/routed. Though I cannot prove it, it has been my general impression from reading that units in real combat will often stay pinned under fire for long periods of time without breaking as long as they aren't taking casualties.

True. CMBB's behaivor is a hold over from CMBO's in this respect. Specifically, Morale and Suppression are too closely tied together. This was designed to make the simulation more simplistic (in good ways) with the understanding that it would cause some problems. But since complexity has its own set of baggage, we felt (4 years ago) that the simulation would be better off with the more simple design. For the most part this is something we still agree with. However, there isn't enough flexibility to account for extreme or specific circumstances. Therefore, in the new engine we will find a different way to handle this so that we can have more flexibility.

Steve

[dalem]

Thanks for listening Steve, I really do appreciate it.

-dale

[Panzer Leader]

Steve Said, regarding sneak speed:

Yes, I for one can accept that the orders options don't always have "just the right thing" for each and every situation.

Yes, but when does anyone EVER want (or need) to use the 5-10 meters/minute version of exhausting sneak, where troops could sneak a maximum of 15-30 meters in 3 minutes before being too tired for anything else?

Numbers generalized)

I would happily accept a less stealthy/less tiring version of sneak. Right now, it seems a useless hindrance, something to be AVOIDED rather than ever used.

[Battlefront.com]

Spook, there is always room for improvement If there wasn't, then I could retire now Seriously, your position has been fairly consistant since you got hold of the game, but I do sense you have shifted slightly more towards the "it ain't broke" side of the fence.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

PL,

Yes, but when does anyone EVER want (or need) to use the 5-10 meters/minute version of exhausting sneak, where troops could sneak a maximum of 15-30 meters in 3 minutes before being too tired for anything else?

Numbers generalized)

Er... almost all the time I use Move to Contact when I want to approach a known or unknown situation with caution. This order is fairly stealthy, or at least stealthy enough for most situations.

What you are talking about is recommending a complete and seperate order. We have to draw the line somewhere because if we didn't the Orders menu would require a 21" monitor just to read the bloody thing Therefore, what you suggest simply didn't make the cut. And for the most part, I don't ever feel the need for it.

Like I said, in your PS example... try different orders and I think you will find they aren't such bad options as you might think.

Steve

[Doodlebug]

Wow. That's one heck of a piece of analysis. Hightlight the common ground, the model, discount it as the problem because it is a common factor and highlight the other variables where the problem has to lie. Neat and very, very difficult to answer without the sort of detailed coding that only BTS has access to. A neat trick also to basically intimate that bad experience equals bad tactician. That'll silence a good few folks.

"When did you stop beating your wife?" Damned if you do or damned if you don't.

I for one do not fall into the FFG nor frankly into the BBG. Instead I prefer to claim the middle ground for a third group, the Congenitally Confused Group. As a member of the CCG I genuinely seek an informed debate with regards to this hotly debated subject.

To hightlight the crux of the issue I've lifted the relevant section in your opening statement.

1. Panic - that CMBB's infantry is unrealistically susceptible to enemy fire and is utterly "useless". March units into fire, they break, then they run away. So much for offensive tactics!

2. Sneak - CMBB's infantry is too likely to use the SNEAK function when coming under fire. Instead of shrugging off the enemy fire or doing something else "intelligent", the unit reverts to Sneak and attempts to get to cover too often. Cover either already ordered to or new cover that the TacAI designates. Sometimes this cover is not in the "right" direction or propper for the current situation.

3. Exhausted - CMBB's infantry is too easily tired out, either through normal orders and conditions or as a result of Sneak behavior mentioned above.

Allow me to put forward my perspective on these points in turn.

1. Is panic wrong?

No. I think it's pitched about right. I do not believe I have seen a single case of unjustifiable panic in the games I have played.

2. Do units revert to sneak orders too readily?

If one talks of unpanicked units no - unhesitatingly no. I have watched units do the right thing under fire, hit the dirt sneak a little and then proceed with their orders after a delay. It may be the same turn or the following turn but it does appear to work. But if one then talks of panicked troops then I say yes. I have yet to see a panicked unit do anything other than sneak.

3. Do units become exhausted too quickly?

Again I'll say no. If I have any modicum of control over the orders given to the units I can anticipate the current build up of fatigue and plan accordingly. It's rather a different story when it's an AI generated sneak but even that I could accept as it stands now.

To be honest therefore you can see that individually I have only a small "problem" with the model (problem is probably too strong a word but I can't think of an alternative at this moment).

I would say that it's perhaps a little disingenuous to try and raise thes three issues as if they were isolated elements. If I were to say

1. Socialising.

2. Alcohol.

3. Cars.

Individually all perfectly correct. But to then say "a night out socialising with lots of alcohol and then a long drive home" and you have a situation where three individually ok elements unite to produce a very unhappy whole.

Put 1. with 2. and you inevitably get 3. They are interconnected and need to be considered so.

There is one point that I think has been overlooked in your summing up. That is the recognition of the "best" cover by a unit when hit by panic. I have never experienced it but I believe that units do not to accept hedges or walls as cover (correct anyone?) and will believe themselves to be in open ground. To watch units retrace lengthy sneak paths when tantalisingly close to what is otherwise perfect safe cover is confusing. I would accept squads sneaking to the rear if occasionally they sneaked forward. I've yet to see that occur but perhaps someone from the FFG can correct me from their experiences.

Can anyone out there shed any light on whether sneak is the default response to panic? Also can BTS comment on the position vis a vis cover recognition. That to a large degree is the heart of the issue at least for me.

There I've said my piece and hope that is seen as a constructive middle ground take on the situation. I desperately want to understand what's the score and even more desperate to play the game without the usual sense of annoyance and bewilderment.

Thank you for reading a rather lengthy piece. I hope it encourages a little positive feedback from both sides of the debate.

CCG (Sitting nervously in No-Mans Land)

[Spook]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Spook, there is always room for improvement If there wasn't, then I could retire now Seriously, your position has been fairly consistant since you got hold of the game, but I do sense you have shifted slightly more towards the "it ain't broke" side of the fence.

A fair assessment. For the game in lump sum, I'm certainly closer to FFG than BBG.

[dalem]

Oh, I can't resist, but since Steve is goofy enough to be all, like, "Mister customer support" and stuff today.....

Steve-

Has anything changed with respect to units not firing at spotted and "valid" targets? One of the most frustrating things for me when I play, now that suppression is so key (as it should be), is to see one of my squads or MG teams that is in command, not under fire, and with a clear LOS to an enemy MG team within 50-200m or so that is hosing my troops (for instance), just sitting there. What is even more frustrating is when I angrily give it targetting orders for the next turn, it keeps the red line for a few seconds, maybe even squeezes out a round or two, then stops. All this without the enemy target disappearing or being suppressed or anything else.

I know about Area Fire and like it and have always used it a lot anyway, and that's not what I'm asking about. If the above behavior is not new and I'm just noticing it more, then fine, I can deal with that. But it sure seems new to me.

-dale

[Ben Galanti]

Just throwing this out there, but would it be more appropriate for units (especially lower quality ones) to go to ground and be pinned or panicked instead of trying to crawl away?

Now, they squads would take more casualties, but in the CM simplification of casualties meaning combat ineffective, that would represent single soldiers routing away instead of the whole squad.

Now, this is somewhat based on my understanding of panic in CMBB. That is, that the unit is still somewhat functional (will take the occasional shot) but can't be directly commanded. This would go to pinned if after a turn or two they hadn't taken any casualties.

Now, I'm sure this would lead to howls of protest about "my squads just sat there and got chewed up and wouldn't go anywhere!!!!" so, I don't know if that's really an improvement

Ben

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

PL,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes, but when does anyone EVER want (or need) to use the 5-10 meters/minute version of exhausting sneak, where troops could sneak a maximum of 15-30 meters in 3 minutes before being too tired for anything else?

Numbers generalized)

What you are talking about is recommending a complete and seperate order.</font>

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

Just throwing this out there, but would it be more appropriate for units (especially lower quality ones) to go to ground and be pinned or panicked instead of trying to crawl away?

Now, they squads would take more casualties, but in the CM simplification of casualties meaning combat ineffective, that would represent single soldiers routing away instead of the whole squad.

Now, this is somewhat based on my understanding of panic in CMBB. That is, that the unit is still somewhat functional (will take the occasional shot) but can't be directly commanded. This would go to pinned if after a turn or two they hadn't taken any casualties.

Now, I'm sure this would lead to howls of protest about "my squads just sat there and got chewed up and wouldn't go anywhere!!!!" so, I don't know if that's really an improvement

Ben

I'd go for that interpretation. If they sit there and get chewed then it at least gives me a turn or two( depending on quality) to organise a command bonus or two, some additional covering fire and a relief effort. As it is now they get chewed up and too tired to run away.

[Stug30]

Please leave the infantry model alone. I would instead prefer you to address the tacAI, especially in regards to machineguns that pull out of their nests when fired upon (as you mentioned).

Steve---you've probably heard this one too often to be of any meaning, but I believe you did a wonderful job on this game.

[silentsniper]

What about the problem of abandoned vehicle crews rushing towards the nearest foxhole, forcing anyone who was already there to move out to open ground?

[murpes]

Originally posted by murpes:

I have neither training manuals nor a historical education.

Allow me to restate that. I have neither training manuals nor a historical education, but if they are readily available online I'd appreciate a link. To such documents, not the education part. I've had enough school for now, thank you. You guys can quit hiding these from me just because you fear my pbem prowess.

[Battlefront.com]

Doodlebug,

Wow. That's one heck of a piece of analysis. Hightlight the common ground, the model, discount it as the problem because it is a common factor and highlight the other variables where the problem has to lie. Neat and very, very difficult to answer without the sort of detailed coding that only BTS has access to. A neat trick also to basically intimate that bad experience equals bad tactician. That'll silence a good few folks.

Not a trick at all, just cold hard logic. If you say you can't get the game to work realistically, and I say I have no problem getting it to work realistically, then the game system can not be the inherent issue. The code can not possibly be both screwed up and functioning correctly at the same time. It just doesn't work that way. You don't need access to the code to see that. I certainly don't have access to the code, nor do I want to

No. I think it's pitched about right. I do not believe I have seen a single case of unjustifiable panic in the games I have played.

Note that this is something that some people have bitched about (not even whining, I mean BAM! straight to bitching ) from the time of the CMBB Demo. Yet you haven't seen this as a problem. So again, we get back to rulling the game system out as the cause for the different points of view. However, it is VERY easy to see how there can be such widely seperated points of view if one side perceives reality one way and the other perceives it differently. Or, one side doesn't think realism is as important as "fun" and the other side things realism is "fun".

2. Do units revert to sneak orders too readily?

If one talks of unpanicked units no - unhesitatingly no. I have watched units do the right thing under fire, hit the dirt sneak a little and then proceed with their orders after a delay. It may be the same turn or the following turn but it does appear to work. But if one then talks of panicked troops then I say yes. I have yet to see a panicked unit do anything other than sneak.

They can in fact do more than Sneak. I very often see them using the Run command. Totally depends on circumstances, but Panicked units tend to use one or the other.

3. Do units become exhausted too quickly?

Again I'll say no. If I have any modicum of control over the orders given to the units I can anticipate the current build up of fatigue and plan accordingly. It's rather a different story when it's an AI generated sneak but even that I could accept as it stands now.

As others have pointed out, provided the unit is not Panicked or worse, you can alter any AI generated order. Sneak or otherwise.

I would say that it's perhaps a little disingenuous to try and raise thes three issues as if they were isolated elements.

Not disingenuous at all. I never said they were isolated and completely seperate elements. If you understood how I think a bit better you would know that I rarely think anything is its own country (so to speak). Almost everything is related in some way to something elese. See previous response to Schoerner. However, some of the Blatently Busted Group have pushed only one of the three as a "problem" and ignored the other two. Because of that and having to start somewhere, I listed them out seperately.

Put 1. with 2. and you inevitably get 3. They are interconnected and need to be considered so.

Of course. But if the individual effects of socializing, alcohol, and driving are simulated correctly, then the end result will be correct as well. A simulation is nothing more than the intereaction of individually simulated component pieces. One does not directly simulate the interaction of individual elements. That is just the end product.

That is the recognition of the "best" cover by a unit when hit by panic.

That is because it is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I have yet to see this brought up as an issue in the context of griping about the infantry modeling.

I have never experienced it but I believe that units do not to accept hedges or walls as cover (correct anyone?) and will believe themselves to be in open ground.

This has been discussed from time to time since CMBO days. The AI is not capable of determining complex concepts of Cover such as "this wall runs East West. If I get onto this South side of it I will be in cover, but only from the North. And only if the enemy's position is not high enough to see over the wall/hedge. So as I said just above, this is not a relevant issue. It is an issue, for sure, but no more part of this "debate" than AI target selection, the funcitioning of Arcs, TacAI choice of paths, etc.

Can anyone out there shed any light on whether sneak is the default response to panic?

No, it is not the default response because there is no such thing as "default" with the TacAI. Everything is situationally dependent. However, sneak generally is the best response and therefore is often the first one seen. But units can go from Sneak to Run or from Run to Sneak if Panicked.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

What is even more frustrating is when I angrily give it targetting orders for the next turn, it keeps the red line for a few seconds, maybe even squeezes out a round or two, then stops.

The only thing I know that will create this behavior is when a unit starts getting low on ammo. For an infantry unit this is generally less than 10. Other than that, I can't offer up anything more because this is not an issue I have ever seen brought up before that was NOT releated to low ammo counts.

Steve

[manchildstein (ii)]

i believe that the problem with FOs and movement is separate from the other issues here...

i would be happy if telephone wire FOs were immobile in cmbb...

this is how it was in squad leader...

in squad leader though you could get any battery, and then choose radio or wire FO...

i don't know how realistic this was...

in any event, how realistic is it to have a wire FO moving around in the middle of a battle?

[Cpt Kernow]

Doodlebug

I have quite often seen troops sneak forward into cover.

I am self employed. I work from home. I sit in front of my computer for 8 hours a day doing stuff (cant say what or id have to kill you) After that 8 hours I conduct my true hobbies of wresteling grizzly bears and translating Hegels "Phenomonolgy of Logic" from saskrit to binary code.

Whilst at "work" I perhaps play CMBB more often than I should.

I have seen this sneak behaviour that some are having problems with but just not very often, hardly ever in fact. I think it must happen under certain conditions (maybe dependent on tactics, maybe not) and it would be good if we could isolate these conditions and then we could know who to blame, the engine or the tactic fxxkwits.

I should perhaps count myself out of the scientific investigation into determining the conditions that bring about the sneak of fools effect. I would be biased towards results showing it to be the fault of the tactic fxxckwits because this would mean that I by counter definiton am not a tactic fxxckwit but in fact the tactical ALPHA and OMEGA whom all shall obey whilst advancing into cover and tremble. Or at least panic and break.

P.s.

Just because I sit in front of the computer allday dont make the mistake of thinking Im not actually quite hard.

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What is even more frustrating is when I angrily give it targetting orders for the next turn, it keeps the red line for a few seconds, maybe even squeezes out a round or two, then stops.

The only thing I know that will create this behavior is when a unit starts getting low on ammo. For an infantry unit this is generally less than 10. Other than that, I can't offer up anything more because this is not an issue I have ever seen brought up before that was NOT releated to low ammo counts.

Steve</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Folks, I don't want this to turn into a general toss about thread. What to do, or not do, with the TacAI could fill an entire Forum. That is not what this thread was designed to discuss. However, one quick answer for Ben and then back on topic,

Just throwing this out there, but would it be more appropriate for units (especially lower quality ones) to go to ground and be pinned or panicked instead of trying to crawl away?

Trust me, until units have "memories" you don't want us to impliment this behavior. How can I be so sure? Because we tried it and it sucked so badly Charles yanked it out within a day of testing Basically units would sit pinned and, so long as they were fired at, would have just about zero chance of moving again. Ever. And that is just totally unrealistic.

Murpes,

Check out our book offerings. These books are fantastic aids for both newbie and grognard players. I have seen testimonials on this Forum about their practical ability to aid in improving player skills. Plus, they are fun to read

Steve

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The only thing I know that will create this behavior is when a unit starts getting low on ammo. For an infantry unit this is generally less than 10. Other than that, I can't offer up anything more because this is not an issue I have ever seen brought up before that was NOT releated to low ammo counts.

Steve[/QB]

Related to Dale's question, I have occasionally seen infantry not fire (with good ammo supply) where they did have a target (albeit not a great one). Is there a firepower rating or a combination of firepower and cover where the AI decides that there is no good reason to waste ammo?

[ November 19, 2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[murpes]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

P.s.

Just because I sit in front of the computer allday dont make the mistake of thinking Im not actually quite hard.

Well, we all like Combat Mission but I think you must more than most.

[Battlefront.com]

Boo_Radley ,

If you have a save game, send it to Matt at madmatt@battlefront.com. I am sure there is soemthing to explain this behavior, but without seeing the file I can't do much more than speculate. And yes, crappy troops are less likely to open fire than better troops. Why? Because if you shoot someone they are likely to shoot back at you However, if you order them to shoot they should. And unless the range or LOS quality sucks, they should continue doing so.

Steve

[Doodlebug]

Hi Cap'n.

Just to clarify you've seen panicked troops sneak forward into cover? If you have then my argument falls as I haven't and my whole experience is based on the "turn tails and go all the way back" situation.

Thanks.