Ardem

I would disagree here the TAC AI is not that impressive. The tree branches used is pretty limited, but for the size company that Battlefront it is very good effort. I also disagree that it cannot be improved more so they it currently is. More branches can be made to the AI decision making process, I am not having a go at what Battlefront has done, but i we were to take the Ai in say a big budget game an FPS, say for instance a new one like Rainbow Six Siege (yes you can compare FPS and RTS AI) imagine you looking at it from a 3D perspective above. Yes we can talking about CPU power etc, but there is obvious branches that the Battlefront team can work on in the reaction space. Also do not mix up animations with TAC AI. Ignore the animation, that is only a representation of what has been called, it does not always correspond correctly to what it happening there is a only a limited number of animations that you can call on. I believe possibly the lack of repsonse is due to the amount of checks the computer runs on the unit, this may have been debraltily slowed to handle larger battles, else a check every microsecond would grind battle to a halt, however with faster CPUs they may want to reevaluate if they can increase the checks. This is not slight at the great work they have done, however they know they can add branches and put more working into it if they wish. There is no need to white knight it the TAC AI could use some more work is all I am saying. I am sure the AI coder for Battlefront would agree, because knowing anyone that does AI coding they should never be satisfied with what is, but maybe he not given enough time or resource to do more then hat he/she has.

The problem with infantry is not the clumping, it is not the accuracy. What is the major problem is the lack of expect reaction to events, and even more so on blindly follow the final command when it is clear it should do something different. Example under fire when moving, the slowness the AI react to coming under fire to either drop and return fire or move to the nearest cover at top speed (even faster then the current sprint) like a dash is the real issue. Or when entering a building and watching your lead soldiers in front get mowed down, curently the Tac AI either reacts by running back to only get shot in the back or continue to push forward and once again reaction is way to slow to what is happening. Instead at holding at the door and firing into the building from the outside. The kneeling looking for a target even though a soldier is being hammered by a platoon worth of firepower and only react which is way to long to hit the ground, not to curl up like a pinned guy but to just keep you head down until there is a lull. Or the reaction of a pinned person staying curled up when at a short range there life is in danger completely and not react to either a dash away or at the very least return fire to a soldier that withing 15m and the pinned soldier knowing that curling up in a little ball will not protect them at that range. It is the reaction of the TACT AI with infantry that needs the improvement, and better accuracy then can be increased, the reason accuracy may be dialed down is because of the slowness and the lack of reaction with infantry personnel to threats. I would like to see blind firing included to a direction, firing at an enemy based on other sense like sound etc. I think huge penalties on accuracy and its not to hit but it is to help with suppression which is already in game. We have blind firing already included with players made choices, however it be nice to see the TAC AI reacting instead of waiting for a player to intervene. More effort need to be made on the reaction to events to the TAC AI and the speed in which the troopers react to it. They seriously need to implement a dash, I hate seeing in a reaction sprint the Tact AI soldier almost moonwalking to where they need to go. I do not think Dash need to be a manual command but a TAC AI only feature, to get to closes cover and dive, not take 4 secs to kneel and lay down

Watched it, nothing but Russian propaganda flick. Sorry Rate it 1 star out of 5

This is a guess. To me they look like Marders III, either with the Barrel removed after capture or removed prior as a command vehicle. I seen PIII's with fake barrels before, but never hear of a marder command vehicle. Now they being used as a an armoured personnel carrier.

I got a different opinion again. I think suppression is too low, accuracy is fine but the movement of troops are way to slow. They get themselves suppressed half the time because they are slow. Sometimes I think they are old grandmas with memory loss. instead of popping up squeezing a few rounds, ducking back in to cover, they knee think about it for a 10 seconds or so, then aim for another 3-4 and then shoot then wait for a while as they looking for where their shot went. Actually I want to get my poor troopers some knee pads cause they look like they have achy bones each time they get up and down, or crawl in a general direction. These pixeltruppens are not in the prime of their life.

I think the helmets are a touch too green, lighten it and take out some saturation and I think it should be spot on. Based off your photo, just looks a little distracting.

Ignoring the white knights (white knights have always confused me, especially when I took the time make sure my post was not offensive to BFC or Steve who has always been pleasant to my posts even if they are critical), This was my understanding pre-shock day and actually cause I do not dwell in the forum up until this post. It was even explained this way after I raised it way back then, obvious that's a long time ago and thought processes change. I could understand Italy and I could understand CMRT being separate families, so to me it was like the 3 families in the old games CMBO, CMAK, CMBB. I was happily going along until I saw a few days ago Bulge as a new product not as a until module, like Commonwealth and Market Garden. As I said just disappointed as I was expecting it to be apart of the CMN family. Nor am I saying I would not pay the same price as a family or a module I happily pay the same if not more for unit packs, because it fill out my CM families with detail. I have an understanding about software development (professional) and games development (hobby) so I am no unfamiliar when a branch cannot support the weight or was not designed to do so. But I would of personally rather seen unit packs for earlier modules then engine updates. However I am sure I am probably alone with this. Oh well c'est la vie! CMRT means if there is new families that much of the battles on the eastern front could not be played a lot of equipment was used thought the war till then end.

A new family but why..... I wished BF would stopped making families or made just an east west family, it basically cancel out all the what if scenarios. Hell I would prefer just one family myself. I feel like BFC is like the government telling me I must eat my peas with a fork not a spoon. In my opinion there is no logical explanation in my mind why they keep opening up new families rather then modules. What if I want to play Normandy in 1945 then 1944 because, allied command delayed the invasion due to italy invasion being a disaster eliminating a lot of the landing craft that was used in Normandy. Or market-garden happened with light snow instead of September, all these things cannot be realized cause I am confined how to play. I am not angry with BFC here just very much disappointed because when we went from CMx1, where we had a whole front to deal with we were told modules will fill it out so by the end we should have the same front and it was more of a financial decision, now I am finding that is not the case. I feel let down from those conversations that were discussed many years ago when people initially raised these concerns. I know I am just a voice in the wilderness on this, and will continue to support BFC game because on the whole they do good work, just a shame that's all.

The only way Patton would of got a war, is if the Russians continued it on taking Europe. Considering the Germans had more power in the east then the west, is a telling event in itself. If the russians had continued on, they would of made quick gains, however the longer it went on the west would of worn them down by sheer air support and supplies alone. But the russians could of easily won europe if they were quick enough, but would of probably been stopped at the rhine and then suffered germans fate, quickly thrown back because their support lined too stretched by then. I feel for the Polish out of all this, the west went to war over Poland and never won Poland's independence just handed it to another dictator. They had to wait 40 odd years for there independence one again.

An interesting piece from Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941-1945, in one of the bridgeheads his gruppe had to hold in 1941, some T-34's come charging in without infantry support, at this stage they could not destroy it as they had no weapons to counter it as infantry, so a brave sergeant jump onto the drivers port and blocked the visions slots with a rag, until it drove out of the AO, if I recall correctly.

2nd Scenario in Blunting the Spear. The second force, had a total of 1 Panzerfaust K, and it missed at 20m distance in the rear of it. Out of the whole company. I resorted to using grenades on a tank, lost 1/2 platoon in the process but the T-34 was KOed.

LOL noteworthy cause I had to give up my CM hobby cause my daughter was taking that time, DAMN children hahhaa. I am in the process of doing a campaign for CMRT, first toe dip in. I used to make a lot of CM maps long ago and scenarios, but the new version never had the time to do these things until now. There is much more better artists then me out the in doing mods, so I rely on them. But if you need help in map making that I can help with, but stil want to play so you going to have to add the unit details, unless we talking player v AI

Personally, playing Hungary without snow does not phase me, sure it as to the atmosphere but you could adlib and say the russians pushed faster into Hungary and got there by September/October. This is outside the 'CMPzC range though' another good encirclement and tank action was in March, Hube's Breakout. I am in the start of making a CMRT campaign of this, almost finished my first map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamenets-Podolsky_Pocket

Jagger mate, how are you. Hope your well. You playing in this as well? GM Jagger here also did much of the work also in that dropbox. Actually my opinion my favorite GM as a player <smile>

It was for CMBB this is going back prior the birth of my daughter so 7 years ago I think. I was involved with CMMC2 and 3, they were very intense and long term games was fun but definitely something that took a lot of time and devotion. I got a feeling nathangun was in CMMC3, not sure. This is definitely not something I suggest doing, just providing maps that might be handy for you. The details in the dropbox are just maps and TOE things at the time as I said you may find something useful you might not. No sweat feel free to look at it or not.

If you need another player, open for a position, either side is fine. Also happy to do DAR/AAR's, On a side note CMMC 4 was suppose to budapest, but on Konrad, which I helped with some the GM work, linked to a lot of information and maps that may or may not be helpful https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s5f50pv53un9pvy/AABESH-lPtcfaQLqvbgToZqVa?dl=0

I did not say a choke point, I said a platoon in line. Its a pretty obvious read, what your talking about in you example is completely off base. If you do it in CMx1 the squad opens up and one squad is suppressed the other two squads are firing which route or kill the squad. CMx2 the OPFor squad opens up, all three squads move to the closes way point crawl around for 10 secs while they get into positions, perhaps you see a few shots fired. By the 10 second mark the original squad is wiped out of 80% dead. The defending squad moves onto the next squad while the two other squads come in and out of spotting and fire ever now and then. CMx1 is far superior in this type of combat you cannot tell me any differently. Again no chokepoints or terrain advantages just a straight up line formation of a platoon against a squad. Now if you take CMx2 CMRT people are now telling players if your german and got a company and there is a couple of squads of Russians with SMG go around the woods do not enter them because you will lose. There is something wrong. I can point to several posts around that. To me they are not realistic outcomes.

Played a hell a lot of CMx1. CMx1 due to abstraction was far easier in MOUT and wooded fights. In many ways I found them more realistic outcomes. And perhaps this is where my fault lies, I think in terms of MOUT and wooded combat CMx1 was far superior, as it does not rely on inferior TACAI but abstraction to achieve expected results. For example a platoon in line, could overwhelm a single squad on contact in cmx1, in cmx2 a single squad could take out a platoon in line cause they take too long to fire back or react. I think some the comment taking from defenders of the TAC AI, saying the tools are at hand use them are very helpful, it is almost blind elitism by some. I am using the tools, I still however feel BF need to invest in better 'contact management' with the TAC AI, if it going to achieve a more realistic outcome that CMx1 was able to achieve. There are times my tactics a flawed and I make mistakes and I full acknowledge those, there are times where luck is not on my side, and there is time when I shake my head at the idiotic behavior of my troops (due to engine inefficiency) that get them killed in whole squads. The last one is the most frustrating as the decision are not of a simple soldier being illogical a whole squad can be lemmings, actual sometime lemmings are smarter. Your movies above are just that movies, the likelihood in a huge field the Halftrack happened to be in the perfect ambush range between two groups of soldiers I always find amusing.

Thanks guys for the feedback, I have implemented a lot of the stuff here, it takes a hellva lot more micro management but it is saving lives.Occasionally my teams get hammer by that one guy with the AK in the building, but on the majority lots of pauses and smaller points are doing the trick. I will not lie I do feel that AI is too slow to react to incoming fire, and I do feel they should react more aggressively with firing back and retreating or firing and moving forward. I think when the point person goes down the AI should do one of two things open up in the general direction and move forward or open up and hold positions, regardless on any moving command other then fast. But this is a personal opinion.

I really appreciated your time in responding to this. I am not new to CM, so much I what you say I do know or understand, however I feel the TAC AI never works out like that. I find my guys get suppressed on first contact, from another enemy team. Perhaps due to the woods close nature, there suppression is almost instant. I play WeGO, I do have support units, but sometimes the viewing range take a while before they are in action by this time, I am taking even more causality. Even with target suppression of the area. however I do feel the squad very rarely fires back and most in a fire fight in the woods defenders just win. In CMx1 due to abstraction this was not always the case. I just find the troops perhaps should have more fight in them, even if it requires blind grenade throwing or something then hugging the ground after contact for 30 seconds to a minute. ----------------------------------------- - I did use last night the pause command outside the house and then move into a building it seemed to work a bit better, so will include this is my standard breach. --------------------------- I think also the closeness of the troops suppresses the 4 man team or an 8 man team, realistically they would have a little more spacing. Example I moved a 4 man team to get some eyes on a building which I knew had the enemy, it was about 150 metre away. The building people of course spot my troops first, no I never move to the edge just enough to get target on the building. They instantly come under fire (I guess I could of done slow) but I thought hunt was being careful like slow, I think there is no difference between move and hunt on spotting. I had bad experiences with slow when moving to a spot, they keep crawling until they go suppressed and die. Anyway they never fire back at the building which fire is coming from, they just lay there for 40 seconds and get chewed at taking casualties. It is not until I get a new turn that I set the building on target so they fire back. My other team not more then 20 meters away cannot spot the enemy but can see the tracer rounds but not the enemy and do nothing. This type of scenario is not unusual, this is regular occurrence how the TAC AI could be improved. I do understand it a huge undertaking but I do think it can be improved. I thank you for your time and effort in reading this and your effort in programming such a unique and great game.

Sashko: In many respects this where I am coming from in an over perspective, but I wanted to nut it down to some of the obvious flaws in my post which cause the mass of casualties. I agree unpredictability is good but there should be a degree of predictability for decent doctrine. Otherwise you might as well do random crap and hope for the best. sburke: My breaches look like the other way around with my men piled in the corner <smile> And the single AI soldier grinning from ear to ear. It would make my day if BF jump in here and goes yes we share your concerns and looking to resolve this as out next major task. I understand engine limitations but I feel program wise they can do something to make MOUT a little more realistic. AKA the human centipede is a prime example of troops hitting the deck in the open when there is cover 10 metres away, some code here if cover is 10 feet away run to it and then cower. Whether they last 30 secs cowering in the open or 5 secs in a run, it all the same they are dead in a MOUT battle if anything you prolonging the agony as a player, giving them false hope that maybe will escape but they never do.

Good ideas, the one thing I am not doing is the 10 sec pause before entry. Everything else I am doing as much as terrain dictates that I can. Will add that to the command phase perhaps it will save a few pixeltruppen. The easiest way is to bring up vehicles and pound it into the ground, I understand that the game should allow for a squad to do a building entry, without always loosing life.

sburke: I am constantly shaking my head over the infantry TAC AI, so I wish I had some great example but normally its a lone survivor that been hammer by heavy weapons, only to ruin my day and take out a whole squad. I wish i could say I have these nice examples but it normally the AI against me that have wonderful examples of shooting while remain hidden or the "AI that gets the cannot be supressed" and kills off a 4 man team. <smile> ----------------- Please do not confuse my breach with explosive breach on walls, I am normally talking a wall that has been breach say by artillery of a tank and the infantry arrives onsite later, your troops are either in cover with no LOS, or in the rubble with full LOS and no cover there is no in between, hedge are not an issue as you can fire through hedges. Half squads I do, but it is a hell a lot of micromanagement and in the end, I end up losing both squads cause a 4 man team get s pinned faster then and 8 man squad or the 8 man squad get s more casualties. The only way to win is my using vehicles to pound targets and move in, but I find thatsilly when trained soldiers should be able to breach and clear a compound to eliminiate a single hiding soldier without losing 8 man, cause of TAC AI silliness. You cannot use hunt cause they, stop, move is just asking to be killed, quick is they are moving too quickly to fire back. It almost you need a new option like assault which allows the 4 team members to suppress while moving forward, or atleast focus on windows and move forward and if the enemy pops up shoot them. I just believe on so many release of BF titles, that this is an area they should focus on, imo it never been right since Shock force and only got marginally better. "Urban fighting is a well known limitation. Needs work. Us lay-folk know it. Battlefront knows it. Requires time and resources that's not available at the moment." I am sorry I don't buy this line anymore with the amount of titles released and being such a known issue, it is something they need to fix before release more titles. It needs to be a priority it is to me a major stick point in the game and really where I see the most frustration in playing Combat mission.

I agree with this on Vehicle assets, 100%. The TAC AI here is superb. The infantry AI, I think is where you shake your head at, if they can bring the Infantry Ai to the standard to vehicle AI is then the game would be perfect as a system can be.

This is a CMx2 thing and I had hoped it would get better over time, but sometime the Infantry Tac AI is so frustrating it pulls my hair out. I been a player and holder of CM games from CMx1 to now my latest Black Sea. I absolutely love the vehicle TAC AI even when I do not like what the crew does, it still makes sense, the vehicle become endangered and throws itself into reverse only to get hit from a previous spotted At weapon, still perfectly understandable. But close combat Infantry Tac AI is what I feel lets the game down in the biggest way, I will explain some scenario and what I see and what i would prefer to see. ---------------------------- PERCEIVED ISSUE:Running, I am not sure if it is the animation or they are so very slow but when guys a running they seem to be doing it on ICE, as in lots of movement but very little forward progress, 9 time out of ten they are all on top of each other so it easy for the enemy to get multiple kills. Now the speed may be due to the amount of weight they are carrying but the speed is exactly the same in WW2 where the in very little weight factor. PERCEIVED SOLUTION: What I rather see, is they move in pairs and individuals, with a more open gap between the soldiers, this way they all do not get slaughter like sheep. This could be an extra command like sprint, to get across streets, without loosing a whole 4 man team, because they are all snails without a care when moving. ------------------------- PERCEIVED ISSUE: Assaulting from a breached corner into a house. To do this you need your 8 man squad to Quick to the breech and then the other team to runs forward into the house, this normal exposed the first team to a hail of fire as the moving into an open area (rubbled wall) which gets them killed then the team racing in like lemming charge in without fire support, goo by 8 man to to a single person with an 8 AK or SMG. PERCEIVED SOLUTION: You can have a number of the team stack on the corner of the wall and support by fire, this has them less exposed, the assault team then breeches. --------------------------- PERCEIVED ISSUE: The Breaching team in a house assault get slaughtered come in the front door, The 4 man team act stupidly regardless the distance the team is away from the door, they pile in to there death like lemmings. The enemy just needs to be a single automatic weapon guy to take down a full team. The assault team does not halt its attack, does not toss a grenade in, does not do anything but run and die. I would just like to say I hate every stuid the tac Ai does, but I am giving one example above. PERCEIVED SOLUTION: The assault team stacks at the door, so we do not have 4 separate entries spread over 10 secs. If the team suspects enemy it toss in a grenade before entry, it enters in the door the first few metres in a rush then halts and frees at the enemy it does not run all the way to the end of the house to turn around and come back to first at the enemy at the front door. It the sweeps as a team through the house and stops an fire as a team at contact. ----------------------------- PERCEIVED ISSUE: Move and then in contact. I prefer to use move sometimes instead of hunt cause I find hunt they stopping all the time on non valid threats that not firing at them, but using move in woods is a pain. If they get ambushed in the wood, the player continues to run and get slaughtered even if it running into the fire. PERCEIVED SOLUTION: If the fire is come from the front, then the move is cancelled and the TAC AI stops and returns fire, before they have to lose a man in the process and start cowering. ---------------------------- PERCEIVED ISSUES: Cowering, I understand cowering makes sense, but I see cowering out in the open, I seen a whole team cower in the woods, and continually get suppress and eventually killed cause they will not even attempt to return fire. This frustrates me more then anything. PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Blind firing, not to hit the enemy but to suppress back to gain a little morale back, throwing grenades, throwing smoke if they have them. crawling away out of range. I rather this then see each individual solider die one after the other cause they will not do anything but cower. --------------------------- PERCEIVED ISSUES: Hunt in single file, move in single file. All movement is is single file. This allows for longer time to get set for contact and normally means all you guys end up cowering and picked off one by one. PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Hunt when moving through woods should be in arrowhead or line formation, this would allow return fire on contact, right now it contact and then cower cause they need to run forward and the firing at the pint guy suppresses the rear guys, the time that my guys normally do better is when i am shot from the side, which they happen to be in a line formation. -------------------------- There is many more bugbears I have of the Infantry TAC AI, but these are my major ones, and the reason I find this game frustrating. I know there is certain things I could be doing better and I am sure a lot of people will come to the defence I the TAC AI . I am not saying it is super bad, just these things could be improved on. Right now infantry without a huge amount of micro management on building assaults or any assault in general take what I would consider unnecessary losses due to it stupidity, where a normal human would do something different. I would love to see BF spend so more time on this front, rather then more vehicles etc.