General Jack Ripper

Sorry I've been away, but Santa doesn't deliver Christmas, I do. 😁
Normal service will resume shortly.

Have exciting news!
MIchael Emrys is not an avatar, AI construct, a myth or anything other than a genial. kind and wise man. This isn't speculation but the result of a direct meeting with him at an undisclosed PNW location recently while accompanied by a professional meticulous observer (brother George, who served 20 years as a Scout for the US Army). The Michael Emrys of the CM Forums is the same one we met and spoke with, but F2F provided far more nuanced and less constrained communication. The Grand Old Man of Combat Mission (a role he takes both seriously and wryly) is a keen observer of Forum doings and a hardcore CMBS player, having replayed one scenario 20 times before cracking the code on how to win. Wish we'd been able to spend more time with him, but we had had to get back in fairly short order. If you ever get a chance to see him, jump on it. He'll greet you with a warm smile and an impressively strong handshake.
Regards,
John Kettler

And as far as I'm concerned, here's a textbook example. Every single squad is split into teams, and every single soldier went where I told them to go. No one bunched up, there were no traffic jams, and placing a waypoint in front of a door before entry leads to only about a five second pause for a four-man team. If that's just too unbearable for your grand battle plan that's timed across an entire infantry battalion down to the microsecond, then buddy, you've got more problems than I can reasonably address.
 

All I know is, the scenario 'Duel in the Mist' is still floating around, and is still one of the most fun times I've had playing Combat Mission.

And I would like an ice cream sandwich.
Michael

Yeah, see that's just not correct. I cannot count the number of times we have had threads started because "my men took a bizarre route and used a different door and now they are all KIA - BFC fix it". This type of thing has been going on for a long time. That's why @General Jack Ripper was a) a bit salty in his response and b) why he had multiple possible causes and several suggestions to make it play better.
Having said all that: Reading this there are times that the description points to something that has changed rather than just yet another pathing complaint thread. I have less time right now than usual and I cannot keep up with my regular games, the top priority testing and the Beta AAR let alone start digging into this but I think this should have a little investigation.
If someone wanted to dive in and do an investigation here is how I would start: Pick a game, other than CMSF, and setup a simple scenario in the latest Engine 3 version of said game with a few buildings and some normal fences etc. Then test out a small force using sensible way point placement for building entry (by that I mean not just one lone move order across multiple terrain types into the building but don't go the team splitting route for this test). Find out when and how often you can get them to use the wrong door - if you can.
Then run that same scenario you built in the Engine 4 version of the game. Try the same stuff and see if the behaviour is different. Note where it is different and how often it is different.
If you find none make the terrain and the yards more extensive and add more buildings and try again.
After that we can see what might be considered undesirable.

No hard feelings here, but sometimes i think you read past what i try to say intentionally. For ~10 years squads did not act like a bunch of morons running around buildings to far side doors that are often observed by the enemy. That is what worked perfectly for about 10 years.
Yes, the AI generally does attack like a big blob moving forwards(CMx1) or like scripted(CMx2) without brains, i do not talk about that, i talk about the specific behavior of them spliting up where they should not, by them self. IF i want them split, i do it myself. The AI is usually too stupid to decide things but now they got the autonomy to decide anyways.
 
You are re-interpreting things here, the "workaround" is to get a group of AI morons to use 1 damn door, and not the other one too. The "workaround" is to take away autonomy that has been given in engine 4 to mindless bots that have no sense of awareness of their surrounding. THAT is the workaround.
If i as the player want to use split squad command, when where and how or not at all, should be my decision not the decision of a mindless robot tacAI that has no clue about things happening in the scenario. As i say before, it worked fine for ~10 years, that change in v4 was not needed at all.
I disagree! The extra input should be optional, when and where i want it. Not a forced mandatory move to "work around" the stupidity of the new AI behavior in v4 to get it to do what it did for ~ 10 years, as i keep saying.
.
.
Now, in order to say something positive, i think you make nice videos, there is good footage in there and the presentation is coherent, i like that. Good job on that!

If hurdling means, "I'm going to put one arm down and kick my legs over the side," which I am reasonably certain it doesn't. Then again, it has been a few years since I've seen a track and field event.
There's only one problem with your hypothesis however: Walls and Fences CAN be hurdled, windows CANNOT. You can, in fact, CLIMB through a window, but usually only with some difficulty, which becomes magnified when attempting to do it with 60-80 pounds of gear. I suppose Battlefront could invest time in making an animation of two soldiers using their hands and shoulders to help a third climb through a window into a house, or they could literally do anything else, or just nothing at all.
I'm in favor of the 'nothing at all approach' otherwise the forums will be filled with complaints about soldiers being shot while attempting to help each other climb through windows, while someone whines and cries about how climbing through windows isn't correctly modeled because some regiment somewhere developed some special stepladder to do the job, and now we need to have said stepladder modeled in the game otherwise it's just broken forever.
Seriously dude, some people are still waiting for an extra tall tripod for the Bruno Enfield Light Machinegun to be modeled, so a soldier can fire it in an anti-aircraft role.
Literally a tripod, for a BREN gun, for antiaircraft use.
There was an actual argument about it and everything. Search it up.

The "traffic jam" was a feature of the game BEFORE version 4, and was FIXED in version 4 by the new infantry behavior; I.E. Infantry no longer "bunch up", "move in single file lines everywhere", and "respect each other's space". This problem is not nearly as large as people are making it out to be, mostly because people would rather have their squads all run around together instead of splitting them into teams at the sharp edge of the attack.
 
A four-man fire team is rarely a critical puzzle piece, and a four man fire team rarely tries to run around a building in order to enter it. There's an entire subsection of commands that allow you to split your squads down into various types of small teams for different purposes, with different weapon loads, and different equipment. If you can't seem to operate a three squad platoon with one or two squads split into teams, then I don't know what I can say. Maybe you shouldn't play on urban maps. Try playing on open fields instead.
If I can learn how to use effective micromanagement in a graviteam title which supposedly "punishes micromanagement", you guys can learn to split your squads into teams to make them more flexible and responsive. If I'm using a two-up one back scheme with my infantry companies, both of my leading platoons will be split down into teams. That's around eleven teams per platoon, across both leading platoons. It's only twenty two units on the sharp edge, of which maybe only three or four are even moving or receiving orders on each turn.
It's not like someone's asking you to break a battalion into teams.
 
Generally speaking, this is what the computer already does. Plot a move command directly across a small patch of marshy terrain, and sit back and watch your guys doggedly trudge through the sludge instead of simply taking the faster and easier path around it. Unless there is physically impassible terrain in your movement path, your troops generally go directly where they're supposed to, with the only deviation being the tendency to follow action spots in either straight lines, or diagonal lines.
The problem observed is the fact that building walls are IMPASSIBLE, thus forcing the ai to make a decision, and it may not make the decision you want, even if it means that the squad will arrive at the 1st floor of the building faster if it splits up and uses two doors.
Doors seem to have a position in which the soldier is "moving through the door", several positions in which soldiers are "waiting to use the door", and if all of those positions are occupied, then the remaining members of the squad look for a new door that is currently not being used.
 
So here's a simple rule of thumb for entering a building:
Split your squad into teams. Order the first team into the building. Give each other team a compounding five second pause I.E. second team five seconds, third team ten seconds. After inputting your pause commands, place a movement waypoint for the following teams on the building, staggering between floors if necessary. I typically have an assault team go in first to the first floor, followed by a weapons team to the second floor, with the remaining rifle section going to the third floor, if able.
When I'm ready to exit the building, I recombine my teams on the first floor prior to exiting, if not under imminent threat.
Otherwise I exit each team separately and regroup the squad in a safe location.
Here's a squad doing exactly as I have described, while a second squad simultaneously fails to do as I have described:
 

And as far as I'm concerned, here's a textbook example. Every single squad is split into teams, and every single soldier went where I told them to go. No one bunched up, there were no traffic jams, and placing a waypoint in front of a door before entry leads to only about a five second pause for a four-man team. If that's just too unbearable for your grand battle plan that's timed across an entire infantry battalion down to the microsecond, then buddy, you've got more problems than I can reasonably address.
 

They are the ones who see a single snarky sentence buried within an entire post, and think the existence of said snark invalidates the poster's very existence.
(I.E. heat even a single degree above the freezing point will cause them to melt and run all over the place, soaking everything.)

Having played Combat Mission since 2003, I can definitively state the game did NOT, in fact, "work perfectly" for "around 10 years or so".
In fact, it has been common knowledge the AI is incapable of launching any type of complex attack ever since Shock Force first came out.
 
Here's an example of what the AI looks like while it's attacking:
 
In fact, one of the earliest criticisms of Shock Force was that for a title that emphasized MOUT combat, the game engine itself seemed almost incapable of simulating combat in MOUT conditions.
 
You ever wonder why the Stryker (MOUT) Battalion has 10-man rifle squads split into three teams (4+3+3)?
That's so you can split your squads down into tiny little teams and use them in the confined spaces you see in urban environments. Splitting your squads down into teams is not a "workaround" for a problem with MOUT combat, it is HOW YOU FIGHT IN MOUT CONDITIONS.
I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand. It just so happens the justification for your extra input is to simply apply some tactical common sense.
If you want to argue about the inclusion of the ability for the AI to split squads into teams, then by all means do so. I will even wholeheartedly agree with you.

Having played Combat Mission since 2003, I can definitively state the game did NOT, in fact, "work perfectly" for "around 10 years or so".
In fact, it has been common knowledge the AI is incapable of launching any type of complex attack ever since Shock Force first came out.
 
Here's an example of what the AI looks like while it's attacking:
 
In fact, one of the earliest criticisms of Shock Force was that for a title that emphasized MOUT combat, the game engine itself seemed almost incapable of simulating combat in MOUT conditions.
 
You ever wonder why the Stryker (MOUT) Battalion has 10-man rifle squads split into three teams (4+3+3)?
That's so you can split your squads down into tiny little teams and use them in the confined spaces you see in urban environments. Splitting your squads down into teams is not a "workaround" for a problem with MOUT combat, it is HOW YOU FIGHT IN MOUT CONDITIONS.
I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand. It just so happens the justification for your extra input is to simply apply some tactical common sense.
If you want to argue about the inclusion of the ability for the AI to split squads into teams, then by all means do so. I will even wholeheartedly agree with you.

Oh please. 
"god forbid i play scenarios where i push 2 or 3 companys through urban space."
You mean like this one?
You do not seem to understand my point, so I'll make it clear as day:
YOUR TROOPS WILL FLOW THROUGH A CITY LIKE WATER IF YOU BREAK THEM INTO SMALL TEAMS.
 
Nice to know someone around here seems to comprehend my posts. I do occasionally get the feeling I am screaming into the vacuum of deep space.
Thank you.
I work sixty hours a week doing a mostly thankless job and that results in my overuse of sarcasm to blow off steam.
Perhaps I should tone that down in the future, but after being here for so long you come across these complaints so wearily often...
 
The issue raised was one of infantry movement. I addressed that issue, and provided a known workaround for the benefit of someone who may not have already seen it. I also took the time to address the most common complaint about said workaround, and attempted to place said complaints within a realistic context. I'm sorry you didn't find that useful, and I'm sorry I'm not a BFC staffer with secret inside information about how to painlessly and effortlessly work around every single problem people raise on the forum. I'm also sorry I haven't specifically tailored several different responses to the issue in the thread specifically tailored to everyone's personal experience with said issue.
Sometimes dealing with a problem takes time and effort. I suppose you could try to convince every single person who ever released a scenario to open them up in the editor and replace all the buildings in them.
I mean, you COULD try that. I doubt it would work though.
 
Good question.
Why AM I even still here, anyway?
I guess after being here for sixteen years I've forgotten why I even signed up here in the first place.

We are now on the losing track. Perhaps I was too humane in the last mission.

A few points...trying to keep this on track with your OP.
 
His post was very useful. It explained, and used examples, of how splitting up into teams and giving staggered timing orders to each team will prevent an team from running around to the wrong side of a house. 
You may not like the STYLE he used, but the factual content was spot-on and useful to those who don't know that a full squad will send autonomously split into teams to pathfind to the next waypoint.
 
If you re-read your original post, you did not specify that you KNEW about the pathfinding/autonomous splitting behavior. That behavior is responsible for the vast majority of running around to the wrong side. The "buggy buildings" issue is much more rare (and solved in recent releases.) You mentioned doors being mis-aligned, parenthetically and only in regards to a specific campaign.
 
^^^
This is true. The requirement to take out ALL buildings and replace them with the SAME building solved a LOT of those issues. 
There are still two outstanding issues: sometimes terrain slope will make a door unusable and sometimes invisible damage will make a door unusable. Both of these cases will cause a team to run around to the "wrong side".

Oh please. 
"god forbid i play scenarios where i push 2 or 3 companys through urban space."
You mean like this one?
You do not seem to understand my point, so I'll make it clear as day:
YOUR TROOPS WILL FLOW THROUGH A CITY LIKE WATER IF YOU BREAK THEM INTO SMALL TEAMS.
 
Nice to know someone around here seems to comprehend my posts. I do occasionally get the feeling I am screaming into the vacuum of deep space.
Thank you.
I work sixty hours a week doing a mostly thankless job and that results in my overuse of sarcasm to blow off steam.
Perhaps I should tone that down in the future, but after being here for so long you come across these complaints so wearily often...
 
The issue raised was one of infantry movement. I addressed that issue, and provided a known workaround for the benefit of someone who may not have already seen it. I also took the time to address the most common complaint about said workaround, and attempted to place said complaints within a realistic context. I'm sorry you didn't find that useful, and I'm sorry I'm not a BFC staffer with secret inside information about how to painlessly and effortlessly work around every single problem people raise on the forum. I'm also sorry I haven't specifically tailored several different responses to the issue in the thread specifically tailored to everyone's personal experience with said issue.
Sometimes dealing with a problem takes time and effort. I suppose you could try to convince every single person who ever released a scenario to open them up in the editor and replace all the buildings in them.
I mean, you COULD try that. I doubt it would work though.
 
Good question.
Why AM I even still here, anyway?
I guess after being here for sixteen years I've forgotten why I even signed up here in the first place.

Wow. I read his commentary as being very on point with some sarcasm tossed in. Apparently, others thought it was some sort of personal attack??? Maybe I come from a less sensitive generation.
Whatever your FEELINGS are, @General Jack Ripper has made some SOLID points, AND has advised how to get around the game engine limitations...AND shown both techniques in action.
Now, onto the OP's question: I really don't think you'll see this get changed anytime soon. (<- IMO)

And as far as I'm concerned, here's a textbook example. Every single squad is split into teams, and every single soldier went where I told them to go. No one bunched up, there were no traffic jams, and placing a waypoint in front of a door before entry leads to only about a five second pause for a four-man team. If that's just too unbearable for your grand battle plan that's timed across an entire infantry battalion down to the microsecond, then buddy, you've got more problems than I can reasonably address.
 

The "traffic jam" was a feature of the game BEFORE version 4, and was FIXED in version 4 by the new infantry behavior; I.E. Infantry no longer "bunch up", "move in single file lines everywhere", and "respect each other's space". This problem is not nearly as large as people are making it out to be, mostly because people would rather have their squads all run around together instead of splitting them into teams at the sharp edge of the attack.
 
A four-man fire team is rarely a critical puzzle piece, and a four man fire team rarely tries to run around a building in order to enter it. There's an entire subsection of commands that allow you to split your squads down into various types of small teams for different purposes, with different weapon loads, and different equipment. If you can't seem to operate a three squad platoon with one or two squads split into teams, then I don't know what I can say. Maybe you shouldn't play on urban maps. Try playing on open fields instead.
If I can learn how to use effective micromanagement in a graviteam title which supposedly "punishes micromanagement", you guys can learn to split your squads into teams to make them more flexible and responsive. If I'm using a two-up one back scheme with my infantry companies, both of my leading platoons will be split down into teams. That's around eleven teams per platoon, across both leading platoons. It's only twenty two units on the sharp edge, of which maybe only three or four are even moving or receiving orders on each turn.
It's not like someone's asking you to break a battalion into teams.
 
Generally speaking, this is what the computer already does. Plot a move command directly across a small patch of marshy terrain, and sit back and watch your guys doggedly trudge through the sludge instead of simply taking the faster and easier path around it. Unless there is physically impassible terrain in your movement path, your troops generally go directly where they're supposed to, with the only deviation being the tendency to follow action spots in either straight lines, or diagonal lines.
The problem observed is the fact that building walls are IMPASSIBLE, thus forcing the ai to make a decision, and it may not make the decision you want, even if it means that the squad will arrive at the 1st floor of the building faster if it splits up and uses two doors.
Doors seem to have a position in which the soldier is "moving through the door", several positions in which soldiers are "waiting to use the door", and if all of those positions are occupied, then the remaining members of the squad look for a new door that is currently not being used.
 
So here's a simple rule of thumb for entering a building:
Split your squad into teams. Order the first team into the building. Give each other team a compounding five second pause I.E. second team five seconds, third team ten seconds. After inputting your pause commands, place a movement waypoint for the following teams on the building, staggering between floors if necessary. I typically have an assault team go in first to the first floor, followed by a weapons team to the second floor, with the remaining rifle section going to the third floor, if able.
When I'm ready to exit the building, I recombine my teams on the first floor prior to exiting, if not under imminent threat.
Otherwise I exit each team separately and regroup the squad in a safe location.
Here's a squad doing exactly as I have described, while a second squad simultaneously fails to do as I have described:
 

And as far as I'm concerned, here's a textbook example. Every single squad is split into teams, and every single soldier went where I told them to go. No one bunched up, there were no traffic jams, and placing a waypoint in front of a door before entry leads to only about a five second pause for a four-man team. If that's just too unbearable for your grand battle plan that's timed across an entire infantry battalion down to the microsecond, then buddy, you've got more problems than I can reasonably address.
 

If hurdling means, "I'm going to put one arm down and kick my legs over the side," which I am reasonably certain it doesn't. Then again, it has been a few years since I've seen a track and field event.
There's only one problem with your hypothesis however: Walls and Fences CAN be hurdled, windows CANNOT. You can, in fact, CLIMB through a window, but usually only with some difficulty, which becomes magnified when attempting to do it with 60-80 pounds of gear. I suppose Battlefront could invest time in making an animation of two soldiers using their hands and shoulders to help a third climb through a window into a house, or they could literally do anything else, or just nothing at all.
I'm in favor of the 'nothing at all approach' otherwise the forums will be filled with complaints about soldiers being shot while attempting to help each other climb through windows, while someone whines and cries about how climbing through windows isn't correctly modeled because some regiment somewhere developed some special stepladder to do the job, and now we need to have said stepladder modeled in the game otherwise it's just broken forever.
Seriously dude, some people are still waiting for an extra tall tripod for the Bruno Enfield Light Machinegun to be modeled, so a soldier can fire it in an anti-aircraft role.
Literally a tripod, for a BREN gun, for antiaircraft use.
There was an actual argument about it and everything. Search it up.