Infantry Don't Bennfit From Low Walls

[Sgt Joch]

i would have thought that these kind of issues would have been ironed out in CMSF and its several patches and modules?

The problem does not exist in CMSF. Place a infantry squad (NATO or Syrian) behind a wall, place an equivalent squad out in the open 100 meters away and the squad in the open will get wiped out in short order.

So this is purely a CMBN issue. As to why this problem exists in CMBN, but not in CMSF, there are various theories which are being tested out.

[skelley]

Could the problem be that the engine tracks every bullet and Infantry don't use cover the way a real human would? I think more abstraction may be needed. It would be impossible to get infantry to use cover the way a human would. A human would just have his head and arms exposed while the AI has his chest up exposed. Same with foxholes. Pretty much the same with all terrain.

In CMX1 we didn't see each soldier so it was abstracted and we couldn't see that 5 guys in the squad were exposing themselves in unrealistic ways. It was left to the imagination and IMHO it worked very well. We all knew that if we put a squad in wooded terrain it was good cover. Now I am never sure what protection terrain, walls, foxholes or houses give. It seems to me that the problem stems from not having enough abstraction.

I'm not advocating going back to CMX1 but I don't see the need to track every bullet. If it is impossible to get infantry to use cover realistically then I don't see an alternative to abstraction.

[YankeeDog]

Could the problem be that the engine tracks every bullet and Infantry don't use cover the way a real human would? ...

I wondered the same thing, until I read the above statements by Sgt. Joch; apparently, this problem does not exist in CMSF. Since the overall characteristics of the 1:1 ballistics modeling and the basic infantry cover modeling have been the same since the CMx2 engine came out, I don't see how this could be the problem; it has to be something that was changed or added with CMBN.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Did a very quick test and did not see these problems, did somebody run some tests and see it?

Oh, yes. See the previous 17 pages.

[BigJ62]

In shock force you saw the low wall problem and the wall behind problem?

Oh, yes. See the previous 17 pages.

[skelley]

I wondered the same thing, until I read the above statements by Sgt. Joch; apparently, this problem does not exist in CMSF. Since the overall characteristics of the 1:1 ballistics modeling and the basic infantry cover modeling have been the same since the CMx2 engine came out, I don't see how this could be the problem; it has to be something that was changed or added with CMBN.

Maybe there is an added bug in CMBN, but in CMSF everybody had automatic weapons so there was a lot more lead going down range. Also squads didn't go prone as much in CMSF, so the squads in the open were even more exposed. That being said, I still think there is an overall problem with infantry not being able to seek proper cover when it is available. I know there are limitations to what a computer game can do, so I wouldn't mind more abstraction.

[YankeeDog]

Maybe there is an added bug in CMBN, but in CMSF everybody had automatic weapons so there was a lot more lead going down range. Also squads didn't go prone as much in CMSF, so the squads in the open were even more exposed. That being said, I still think there is an overall problem with infantry not being able to seek proper cover when it is available. I know there are limitations to what a computer game can do, so I wouldn't mind more abstraction.

There actually already is an abstraction that handles this. In CMx2, pretty much any type of terrain other than flat, featureless pavement offers a "cover bonus". AIUI, what happens is that the game first determines whether or not the ballistic path of a round intersects with the 3D model of a soldier. If it does, it's flagged as a possible hit. There is then an abstracted % chance that this possible hit is actually intercepted by the "micro terrain", and the soldier's ability find cover behind same.

So even without considering any cover provided by actual trees and bushes, a soldier in flat, "open ground" terrain is substantially more likely to be hit than a soldier in flat "heavy woods" terrain, even though the 3D representation is pretty much the same. Abstractly, we're supposed to imagine soldiers finding some level of additional cover behind the small depressions, rocks, roots, etc. that are available.

This said, I don't know how the above abstraction works with regards to something like a low wall, which is different than a simple ground type such as open ground or heavy woods in that the cover it provides is directional. It may be that this complexity, and how the engine handles it, is the source of some of these issues.

[Sgt Joch]

It could be a lot of things causing this in CMBN and not in CMSF. It may be as simple as the fact that walls are lower in CMBN and do not give as much cover as in CMSF:

CMBN:

CMSF:

[sburke]

Maybe the French resistance sabotaged wall construction and then forgot to pass that info along to SHAEF.....

[BigJ62]

I'm also not seeing any wall behind effect in shock force.

[skelley]

Never noticed that Sgt Joch. That looks like it could be the biggest cause.

I know there is abstraction already in the game, I guess I'm just advocating for more abstraction because with 1:1 and tracking each bullet, it becomes more obvious when something is off. Leave more to my imagination and the visual disparities won't matter as much. A slight shift away from engineered to results based.

[Sgt Joch]

The wall is one possible factor. ROF may be another one.

In CMSF, each dismount is equipped with the equivalent of a WW2-era LMG (i.e. M4/M16/AK-47/AK-74), so close range firefights tend to be short and violent. The infantry out in the open tends to get suppressed quickly and mostly ceases firing, contributing to its destruction.

In CMBN, because the rifles have a lower ROF, you don't get the same suppression effect, so the infantry out in the open continues firing at about the same rate as the one behind the wall.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In shock force you saw the low wall problem and the wall behind problem?

Oh, sorry I thought you meant CMBN

[Broadsword56]

Another size wall and bocage would be pretty good, in between the two we have. And it would be nice if 'hunting' infantry kept a very low profile, in the classic hunched posture we've seen in a million contemporary pics. Low walls aren't high enough to protect anyone unless they're lying down, high are too tall to peek over - seems like we're missing a happy medium between them.

+1 to the idea of a lower profile for the dismounted troops on "Hunt." The animation as it is now conveys the idea of cautious stalking, but (sorry if this sounds a bit cruel here) it often looks to me like a cross between John Cleese's "Ministry of Silly Walks" and Elmer Fudd huntin' wabbits.

[Dadekster88]

I always felt that the troops in CMBN either exposed themselves to much or for some odd reason just died a lot at walls and I've been leery of using walls as cover as a result. Certain buildings also seem to be KIA/MIA death traps as well but I'm not sure what is going on there... I just chalk it up to me being an idiot.

Most though wanted to say thanks for the hard core players for looking into this and other bugs and also to BF for being responsive to it and stating that they are looking into it. What I take away from all of this is that BF has a great community and in the end it just makes for a game that just gets better and better. Try bringing up a gameplay issue to EA and see where that gets you (EA comment strictly imo, I still lub my NHL series)

[MD82]

If what was posted up thread about most of the casualties behind the wall being from rifle grenades is the case, then most of this discussion is pointless. Being behind a wall may in fact be excellent cover from incoming bullets, but no cover at all from fragments of grenades exploding on the same side of the wall. And since, as has been noted, the soldiers behind the wall are in a more upright position, their vulnerability to such fragments is actually increased.

Michael

That's debatable. Prone bodies present a greater surface area to a grenade exploding above them than kneeling bodies do. Conversely, a kneeling soldier would present more target area than a prone one to a grenade exploding on the ground.

[sburke]

That's debatable. Prone bodies present a greater surface area to a grenade exploding above them than kneeling bodies do. Conversely, a kneeling soldier would present more target area than a prone one to a grenade exploding on the ground.

None of my casualties were caused by rifle grenades - not for lack of trying, but they kept falling short. That said I have deferred to BFC as they seem to have an idea what may be causing the effect and futher testing results from me are probably only going to contribute flawed data not in line with what they are reviewing anyway. So now I am trying to work on a different flaw....my tactics, a much much harder issue to fix.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, we have very specific ideas of where the issues are The fixes will be in v1.01.

Steve

[sburke]

Yes, we have very specific ideas of where the issues are The fixes will be in v1.01.

Steve

You figured out how to fix my tactics? Outstanding!!!

[womble]

That's debatable. Prone bodies present a greater surface area to a grenade exploding above them than kneeling bodies do. Conversely, a kneeling soldier would present more target area than a prone one to a grenade exploding on the ground.

Most things that go boom do so upon or shortly after impact. In the test scenarios there's no overhead to create airbursts, so pretty much every grenade will be a groundburst, making the kneeling-behind-wall side more vulnerable to the (probably pretty low) proportion of rifle grenades that explode within lethal radius behind the wall.

[dieseltaylor]

sburke - I did the hiding behind a wall test moons ago and rifle grenades were the only cause of casualties to hidden troops. However AFAIR the range was 140 and the overs and unders form three squads firing at a single point on the wall were impressive.

If one had been testing A single squad then I may not have had any casualties as they were quite modest.

It is an interesting point that all testing is done on the basis of 1 to 1 whereas we are going to being doing our darndest never to fight unless the odds are in favour, and hopefully by a lot. : )

[Battlefront.com]

It is an interesting point that all testing is done on the basis of 1 to 1 whereas we are going to being doing our darndest never to fight unless the odds are in favour, and hopefully by a lot. : )

Yup, which is why testing sometimes uncovers a problem which is quite real that appears to be huge and impossible to have missed. But when average battle conditions are taken into account the actual problems seen in an actual game ranges from a no problem at all to not really all that noticeable.

This is the case with the issues of Low Walls. Usually conditions exist in a game which makes the defender behind a wall come out way ahead when it should (i.e. not when a Sherman 75 is pumping HE rounds directly at them). Since people can't report problems when there is no problem to report, it sometimes takes a while for a player to experience (and understand) a problem like this in order to report it. Then, once reported and verified, it becomes rather obvious.

Put another way... if the problem with Low Walls was as obvious in real games as it is in these artificial tests... I doubt the thousands of people who frequent this Forum would have taken more than 1 day post release to have identified this problem. You guys are not know for being shy about griping about stuff that isn't a problem, not to mention stuff that really is

Steve