TheBlackHand

Noted . . . but I'm seriously done with it. This mission was a major fail, in more ways than one.

Well, I'm now officially done with this campaign. No more. I tried working with just two tanks. I tried over the space of an hour to get them across the bridge area. It did not work. Curiously, I had one tank that kept pausing and pausing and pausing. This began as the tank reached the bridge approach. Each pause was just two or three seconds long, then the tank would inch forward a foot or two, then pause again. When the turn would end, with the tank making no progress, I'd change his first waypoint. He'd still do the pause thing. Of course, he was pausing right on top of the TRP so eventually . . . you know what happened. The other tank eventually made its way down into the creekbed. This was an extremely difficult operation that required numerous remaps. Half the time, I'd give him his half-dozen waypoints, then as soon as the turn started . . . no more waypoints. The tank just sat there. The waypoints that I plotted having magically disappeared. When he finally did start down the hill I was very excited because it looked for a second there like he was actually following my instructions . . . but . . . he made a 90 degree turn and went directly under the bridge . . . even though his waypoint was most certainly NOT under the bridge. He sat there for a turn or two, despite being given waypoints after each turn (ignored). He only began to creep out from under the bridge when I gave him a reverse command. He reversed for about five feet and . . . bogged. Soon after he bogged, the other tank took an artillery round right through the turret. At that point I loudly swore at the game designers once again and gave up. Did ANYONE at Battlefront actually play this battle before foisting it on the public? Do all of the campaigns have similar, impassible/impossible roadblocks?

Thanks guys, I will try ONCE more to get this right, although I have my doubts. As for plotting, I did pretty much as Wombie . . . I think. I went to the top down view, zoomed in and painstaikingly plotted waypoints from all angles across the crossing, taking care to AVOID placing any waypoint directly on (or under) the bridge. I was able to put most of my waypoints within a few feet of each other. I figured this would give my tanks (and infantry) very specific instructions as to movement. I gave my tanks "move" orders. I will try "slow" instead. I gave my infantry "quick" and "move". Quick when exposed, Move when hidden. The tanks, without fail, moved out on to the bridge . . . or attempted to. This, despite having been given different paths. (Actually, I think there were only a few paths that the game would actually take . . . none of them were the actual path that any of the tanks took.) I had one tank that got to the top (entrance berm) of the bridge and simply wouldn't move at all, despite having been given the same path that another tank had been given. This non-moving (non immobilized or rattled) tank blocked the path for the tank that did attempt to take the same path. That tank was forced to move around the other, eventually bogging. Bottom line . . . all of this nit-picky, PITA pathfinding is COMPLETE BULLSH*T. It saps every last bit of "simulation" from the game. There is no way that I can rationalize this to make it fit into any sort of real-world scenario. Perhaps I might feel differently if the breifing had stated that the crossing was largely unworkable and that only a FOOL would actually try it with an armored vehicle. It would also have been nice if there had been some warning that the crossing was a virtual maze for infantry, no matter what the Pioneers did. This sort of crap makes the game feel like a game. A poorly designed game. A Rubiks Cube in camouflage (and a few pieces missing). It sure looks good though. Yeah, it looks great. Looks. I look forward to playing PBEM with CMx2, but till then, I sure as hell can't recommend the AI campaigns to anyone. Not this one anyhow . . . and not many of the others, from what I've read so far.

Thanks game designers, great way to kick us all in the nuts. Will any of these battles (pathfinding problems) be fixed in the patch, or is this campaign strictly made for masochists?

The infantry pathfinding was no better this time either. I managed to blow pretty much all of the wire away and yet . . . the infantry continued to run all up around over and through. They pretty much went everywhere I DIDN'T tell them to go. Thankfully I only sent the Pioneers over. Only lost a couple of them . . . but I sure as heck wasn't going to send any of the other platoons through that impossible mess. Same thing with tanks. I'd give them a waypoint here, they'd go there. Some would just . . . not go anywhere. No, I didn't rush them all up at one time. I should have stopped completely after the first two bogged . . . but at that point I wanted to see how bad it could get. How did any of you guys manage to get your tanks to that other side? It seems like a pure luck thing to me. I truly believe I tried every possible pathing point. None of them worked. How is something like this programmed . . . and why? Seems ridiculous to me. Anyway, I do want to play out every campaign on the disk (for now) so I'll give this another try tomorrow night. I think I'll start up at the save where my tanks arrive. I'll just keep them on the banks of the river (unless someone can give me the cheat code to get across the river). I'll run those 105's over the hill and hope to kill the German FO. After that, I'll send the rest of the infantry over . . . if there's any time left. Totally lame way to get past this broken battle . . . but there doesn't seem to be any other option. (Good thing I'm not a game reviewer at this point. I would be giving it a 10 . . . as in "numba ten, da worst".)

I just tried this battle again for the third and possibly, last time (how many effing times did the designer expect a player to play it?). This time I cheated by bombing the sh*t out of the gun positions because . . . by this time, I knew exactly where they were. Not much fun, definitely kills the immersion, but hey, at least I figured I'd get beyond this bullsh*t and advance the campaign . . . albeit, having known that I cheated. I don't feel too bad about it, knowing that the battle is pretty much unwinnable on a first go. So . . . so far so good. Figure I'll need to get my tanks to the other side of the river so that I can move them along with the infantry up to the final hill (which is set to be pulverized any minute by my 105's). Might as well move them before moving the infantry since the coast is clear. I begin to move them across. Pretty soon, I proceed to lose ALL OF MY TANKS trying to get across that stupid bridge. Lost two of them to artillery because they couldn't pathfind worth a sh*t, depite the fact that I had painstaikingly plotted about a dozen waypoints for each one. The others futzed around until they all bogged/immobilized. In fact, they all futzed around the bridge area like they had not a clue what to do. Which makes me wonder, did the game designer have a f*cking clue when they designed this BULLSH*T battle? Yeah, I'm pissed. I think I have a right to be. This particular battle is practically unplayable, which renders the rest of the campaign practcially unplayable, correct? Definitely not as advertised. A waste of time. No fun. Yet, I continue to go back to it. Not out of enjoyment, really . . . it's just to see how bad it can get. Like rooting for a losing team. I'm no programmer, but seriously, WTF is this? Are the tanks just NOT MEANT to get across the river? If so, why not mention it in the briefing? Say the crossing is just not suitable for armored vehicles or something. I don't appreciate the wasted time.

All of this is very interesting and I'm glad that nobody took my rant personally. I may . . . may try this one again (and again), just to see if I can ever get it right. I will use a mixture of everyones winning strategy. I'm still very skeptical that anyone could actually come close to winning this scenario on a first try, without being incredibly lucky. I actually like that the game throws in some challenges, such as poor leadership, seemingly unattainable goals and iffy equipment but this particular battle seems like a combination of all of those and then some.

OK, I am officially f*cking DONE with this battle. Total Victory? Before the third company even shows up? 11 KIA and 15 Wounded? No offense man, but I simply don't believe it. How could you POSSIBLY move your guys fast enough, under fire, through horrid pathing to accomplish this type of victory in that amount of time? 11 KIA and only fifteen wounded? With all of that German artillery and limited freedom of movement once your'e across the bridge (as if that is an easy task). Really? ELEVEN KIA?!?! Amazing. I lose at least eleven KIA with every volley of psychically registered German artillery. I've tried this scenario a second time and I've had only slightly better results. Perhaps after playign it five times, I might have it sorted out enough to have anyone left to rush that final hill with. I'm not going to do that though. I don't have the patience for it. The pathing through and around that bridge is a F*CKING JOKE. Once you make it through that invisible maze, movement through the swamp is practically impossible so it's pretty much hey diddle diddle, right up the middle. When the sun comes up, the seemingly unlimited German artillery comes out and . . . lights out. I pulled the plug on this bullsh*t when my second tank bogged while making some unexplained movment in and around the bridge. He actually tried to CROSS the bridge, although I had given him expicit commands to move AROUND the bridge. Did I mention that the other tank did two spins before deciding to disregard my pathing instructions to move up on the road and follow the other tank right into the drink? I didn't, well, it happened. Seriously, this is just the second battle that I've played in the game (besides the training scenarios). Doesn't bode well for the future. Are all of the battles this effing IMPOSSIBLE and flat out FRUSTRATING? BTW, I'm playing on Warrior difficulty. I was considering bumping it up to the next level but, Jesus . . . I think I better just go back to playing Pong.

So, last night I began round two. I was able to get my pioneers up to the bridge, they blew the wire in three places. I was then able to rush two entire platoons to the far side of the stream before the arty began dropping (I know, I couldn't believe it either). However, this crossing was not without difficulty. Although I had blown the wire . . . it seemed to make absolutely no difference in the way the troops attempted to make the crossing. It appears that the AI pathfinding was ATROCIOUS. I used split teams half the time and full squads the other half. BOTH teams chose to run around the wire, then across the bridge, then down and under the bridge, after which they headed for the far side of the river. I specifically gave them waypoints as far from the bridge as possible . . . but they still chose to go over it, taking intermittent machine gun fire the whole time. I lost a few people that way. Also, although I had plotted waypoints around the minefields, two squads decided to run RIGHT THROUGH the minefields . . . despite the bodies of their friends falling left and right, as well as those of the preceding team. Duh. The pioneers were never offered the "Mark Mines" command (it was grayed out), although they were directly adjacent to the minefields before and after the regular infantry began trotting across. Now I have my guys in defilade on the far side of the bank. Trying to figure out what to do next. Really aggravated with the pathfinding and failure of the pioneers. Also, when the artillery began to move in on the enemy trp's at the bridge . . . shouldn't it have helped to remove the wire and clear the minefields? I'd like to know if my reinforcements are going to behave the same way as they attempt to cross.

I just gave up on this one last night after trying for two days to get it right. I'll retackle it tonight using a few of the concepts in this thread. One thing though, how do I get the pioneers to blow the barbed wire? Also, with the "mark mines" command, do I just place them adjacent to the mines and let them go about their business, or do I actually send them into the minefield?

I understand that this would not be possible in this game, correct?

What is realistic in my view? Anti-tank infantry teams that don't open up at ridiculous ranges. In my experience, anything over 100 yards is pretty gaddamn ridiculous. Of course, this is my GAMING experience. I have no actual experience firing Panzerschrecks at M8 Grayhounds from two or three hundred yards while receiving .50 caliber and 37mm fire in return. This isn't CMSF. I'm simply interested in a gaming experience that best simulates what I have come to expect from WW2 era weapons and tactics, based on what I've read. If I wanted to play CMSF I would be playing CMSF. I don't want to play CMSF. I want to play CM:BN. A game which is set in 1944, not 2011 or whatever.

Well, I never said that this sort of thing never happened in CMx1. It did. Often. I simply would've thought they'd have at least found a better fix for it . . . since CMBO. OK, so that works for the human player . . . but what about when I'm playing the AI? In my example I showed you how I was able to park an armored vehicle well out of effective range and . . . as Blackcat said: This is simply one issue that I would like a better fix for from Battlefront. Make the "hard limit" a variable based on the experience (or other factors) of the AI/AT team . . . just make it REALISTIC. The realism of having an AT team open up on an armored vehicle feels about as realistic as the chance to hit/kill at that range. Ie. nil. I expect to feel a pucker factor of ten if/when my vehicles approach 100yards of a likely AT team. That's why infantry should precede tanks into such areas. I don't expect to be able to exploit the AI by hanging back and waiting for the idiots to open up. This is constructive criticism. I truly believe that Battlefront can do better here. I don't believe that cover arcs are the best answer. If they are, why doesn't the AI have them?

I agree with this, but I still think that even an inexperienced crew would know better than to open up at distances such as . . . . If true, this should not be happening. Certainly not "routinely". Seems a simple fix, relatively speaking.

Yes, I did. It didn't seem to work at all. Aha! That figures. I did, indeed have the first team up there as the second team placed themselves. In CMx1 I could've placed the (moveable) waypoint at the corner of the building/second floor and thats where they would've gone. I do appreciate the answers giving me the technical reasons why units in CM:BN behave differently. Honestly though, it all begins to sound like algebra to me . . . and I'm no good at math. It goes back to what I said about "perception is reality". My perception is that, in certain respects, the pinpoint placement of units CMx1 was more precise. I understand that this may not actually be true. In that regard, is there anything that will give me an indication of the amount/type of cover that my soldiers are currently utilizing? I haven't noticed that in the interface. Will look for it tonight. Would be a nice thing to have. Personally, I would say "no". This would be a ridiculous waste of ammunition and it would give away your position. That is the command that I would assume would most normally be given by any human commander. Therefore, that is the restriction that I would have coded into the game. Alternately, I would set it up so that if the PLAYER/COMMANDER gave a DIRECT order to that team (via cover arc, for example), then they could/would open up. I do not think it is realistic or advantageous for AI teams to be using a weapons maximum range as their cue to open fire. I wouldn't think that any target sitting at max range would provide a better than 60% chance of hit/kill.

Hope so. That's kinda why I'm adding my two cents. This seems like a fixable issue. It would improve the experience dramatically. I would expect the AI to behave this way on "Boot Camp" setting, because it makes it so easy for the human player to pinpoint and destroy them. Maybe the difficulty slider could apply to AI behavior as well. Tonight I will begin playing at the higher level of difficulty (probably "Warrior" setting, as it sounds like the most enjoyable setting to me).

Still learning the game, playing the training missions. Taking it slow. Last night I had a schreck team open up on my M8 from 250+ yards away. Of course, all of his rounds were falling short and the team never moved. I let my M8 sit there and shoot back while the schreck wasted rounds. I thought the team would bug out, but they stuck around and stayed alive . . . until the Shermans showed up and finally put the panzerschreck to bed. Question: why is the AI set to open fire on targets which are well beyond the maximum effective range? Also, why would the AI not be programmed to move it's AT team after the first shot or two and when they KNOW they have been spotted (and are being fired on by both a fifty cal and a cannon)? It seems that self-preservation has not been included in their thought process. Isn't the AI supposed to mimmick human behavior? I can't imagine that any human being would play the way the AI played in this situation. Not a seasoned player, anyhow. I am not a programmer so I am not questioning the programming ability of the Battlefront people. It just seems to me (an layman/idiot) that if in the CMx1 games, there was a calculated "chance to hit/kill", it could be written in that no AI/AT weapons would open fire on a target unless there was a greater than, say 60% chance of a hit/kill in CM:BN. I suppose the old "target lines" argument may come in to play here. Therefore, I'm not asking that the old CMx1 info to be displayed (I'm assuming it isn't, I have not played against tanks yet). I'm just wondering if it could be possible to make this information available to the AI . . . and if they can have it, why couldn't we? If I were a tank commander/AT gunner I would certainly calculate my "percentage to hit/kill" on any target that I was considering firing on. It would also seem logical to program the teams to move after the first couple of shots, instead of hanging around to get pummeled by the armor that they are wasting their ammo on. This type of programming would also solve the rare, but incredibly aggravating situation where the AI makes a ridiculously lucky shot from well beyond max effective range. Again, I would assume that any human player would know better than to make these AI mistakes, which is why playing a human being is when the real battle actually begins . . . but couldn't the AI be improved in this way as well? It just seems like common sense to me. Also, the only other thing that bugged me about the battle I played last night was that the first HQ team that I sent up to spot, would not move to the front of the building and therefore did not spot the MG teams, AT guns, etc. I spent three turns trying to get them to move to the proper windows, but they always stayed at the back of the room, looking out the side windows. When the reinforcements showed up, I ordered the other HQ team up there, and they went right to the front windows. What happened here? It seems like the movment options where much more precise in CMx1. I know the fanboys will jump down my neck and tell me how wrong I am and that this is impossible . . . but perception is reality. I don't remember this problem in that game. Hoping to hear that it isn't going to happen very often in CM:BN. I'm open to the notion that I need to get used to how to properly use the CM:BN engine and that is what I am doing.

Because it speeds up turn planning and adds more precision to your movement. I've found that having to re-plan an entire route is kind of a PITA. It was much easier in CMx1. If I had a list of enhancements this would be in the top ten. It was/is a nice thing to have.

WHAT?! This can't be true . . . or, if it is . . . it must be good for us. Battlefront has ten, twelve, twenty plus years of programming TacAI. Do not question this expertise. Those riflemen are shooting for the optics . . . from 400 hundred yards away. You bet. Why not? Could happen! Not only that, the field manual says that this is a good and wise tactic. What more do you need to know? Besides, I've seen British riflemen blow up PanzerIV's with one, well placed shot in Battleground Europe so . . . put that in your pipe and schmoke it! It happens. For real.

Clearly, I'm being facetious in my responses in this thread. I have never said that I want absolute obedience. That should be clear . . . and I think I stated it a number of times. However, I do want to feel as though I am in total control of the command of my troops. I find the suggested slide toward letting the AI take control to be a disconcerting proposition. It is actually funny to hear some people make all sorts of excuses for what the AI does or does not do. Hey, we all rationalize things . . . but just call a spade a spade. The AT team in question made a mistake. They jumped the gun. They disobeyed orders. They pissed off their CO. Anyhow, GunnerGoz, chill out, man. It's just a game. Play it your way . . . just . . . please don't give Battlefront any further ideas about removing these cover arc things. Removing them would be a huge mistake. Improving them . . . well, I believe that is what MOST of us are hoping for . . . and what Steve here is working toward.

I find this very hard to believe. So, when you give pointed orders to your soldiers you are "cobbling" them with your ideas of how to play the game/win the battle? Jeesus, man. Why even bother playing at all? Just watch a movie.

Really, the knee-jerk, reactionary, conspiracy theorist side of my brain is hearing that Battlefront wants to put the AI in control of everything. That is, the TacAI or whatever we're calling it, is actually the GOD in charge of my battle . . . and the frogs in the pot seem to agree. The rational side of thought tells me that this cannot really be true. My orders are MY orders . . . the AI is the GOD of my ENEMY . . . but I am in control of my fate and that of the troops under MY command. At least, when playing the . . . AI. I will not willingly submit to any computer overlord. Anyhow, another thing that occurs to me with regard to AT teams and cover arcs. When I gave a cover arc to my AT teams in CMx1, I set my zookers to fire at 50 yards and my schrecks to fire at 75. It's my Company/Platoon/Fire-Team, those are how I train MY people. Sure, these weapons could kill targets at further ranges, but the probability of a hit at those ranges was (as I understand it), historically quite difficult. In MY company, I lay down the LAW (so to speak). WE don't open up on ANYTHING without a high-percentage probability of a hit/kill. Period. To open up at greater ranges only gives away your position, wastes ammo and brings down a world of hurt, from the enemy, and the company commander. I understand that mistakes are going to be made, but the dice roll on whether MY (well trained) SOLDIERS disobey MY ORDERS better be pretty effing slim. Sure, I expect the occasional act of disobedeince and for reality's sake, I want those occasions to crop up. However, I want the greater percentage of my orders to be set in stone with the percentage of disobedience on a sliding scale depending on various factors (training, panic, fatique, etc.). I trust that this is how Battlefront has designed the game . . . but when I hear the disobeince in the OP's post excused (even championed) by a member of the design team . . . it makes me wonder. I am the one in command here. If I turn out to be a $hitty commander and order my soldiers to do what may turn out to be stupid things, then I will lose. I want to bear responsibility for my successes and failures. I don't want the AI in charge of my fate. The TacAI didn't pay sixty bucks for this game. I did.

More to the point . . . I like to think of myself not only as the company commander, but also the one in charge right on down the line to the friggin' lance-corporal in charge of that bazooka. If my squaddie freaks out and opens fire, against MY orders . . . I'm gonna knock his effin' block off . . . if we live through his bone-headed maneuver. It is MY game, right? Who's in charge here? The scenario GAJ describes, where his orders are flagrantly disobeyed, better be pretty friggin rare. I experienced something similar last night when I was playing the training mission. (That's all the further I'm in to the game so far.) I gave orders to target the PzIV's . . . but they were always overridden in favor of targeting the Panther. That takes me right out of the tank commanders seat . . . and plops the AI right down in there. Great.

Its weird because I never saw/heard my MG's firing . . . and they always had clear targets. The rest of the team fired, but not the MG. I'll play it again tonight & see what happens. Sounds like "Hunt" works the same as "Move to Contact". "Move to Contact" was/is a very useful command . . . unless you like your troops to "move" right into the teeth of machine gun fire . . . until they're all dead. (I play turn-based, maybe RT is different.)

I'm with GAJ 100% on this one. The AT team should NOT have overrode his orders. I like to think of myself as the platoon leader that gives the orders to the AT team. I have information that tells me that the tank is abandoned. I relay this information to my team along with orders (covered arc/ignore that tank). When they disobey my orders, thus giving away their position and possibly getting themselves and others killed, I get pi$$ed. Those guys are in trouble. The occasional disobedient mistake that I encountered in CMx1 was aggravating, but it DID add to the real-life feel. Mistakes happen. They ought to be rare, especially with "veteran", well-trained troops. I hope this is also a rare occurrence in CMBN. I don't like to hear that my orders are secondary to the AI.