molotov_billy

It does seem like we have enough movement commands that a wide variety of SOP can be covered by commands alone. In the scenario you describe above, I would expect a "fast" command to do the job, though things would become a bit trickier if an unseen enemy unit occupied your movement destination, and your men furiously attempted to run onto a spot directly occupied by the enemy. You also have to consider that despite your commands, a squad of human men have their own ideas about what's best for them. Every move command should have a threshhold at which something breaks - if my commander told me to sprint across a street in which five of my buddies had just died trying to cross, I'd obviously want to stick to the cover that I had. This should in someway be reflected in TacAI as well.

I made a poor in-game decision which highlighted the deficiencies that the current tactical AI has. It's but one of the many situations which people have brought up that show a specific type of malfunctioning AI behavior - my tactical ability is completely irrelevant. If you but open your eyes and read a couple posts other than my own, you'll see a bunch of people chiming in with the same experiences that I've had. Like I've said several times, the enemy unit was on a clear roadway. The defining feature of a clear roadway is that it's free of obstructions - units located there should be plainly visible, especially to someone as near as 10 feet away. I realize that there are abstractions going on in a lot of cases, but certainly not to the absurd degree of hiding a full squad of soldiers on a clear roadway from another unit that is nearly within arm's reach! If every terrain type has the ability to hide every unit at that range, what would the use of terrain types be? What is the tactical difference between roadway and tall grass? No, it isn't as you describe, and I highly doubt that it's intentional for a roadway to have the ability to cloak units as such. There's something definately bugged in the way units spot eachother (rather, don't spot) at close range. See Phillip's other topic where a Bradley IFV went unseen at the same close range. A bradley is 6.5 meters long and 3 meters tall - what abstraction would you suppose was hiding such a thing? They were not in cover and they were not preparing an ambush - it was a meeting engagement between two units in clear terrain, and both sides would realistically have seen eachother and reacted. Because moving units are apparently blind and deaf to the world, only the enemy AI reacted. As I've iterated so many times before, a squad of humans would have reacted to at least one of the following: A) Seeing the enemy 10 feet in front of them. Seeing friendlies getting cut down in front of them. C) Hearing the sound of gunfire but 10 feet away. They reacted to none of that. You can misconstrue my scenario into any fantasy scenario that you like, but it does us no good, because a) what you describe didn't happen, and these same behaviors occur consistently in a great number of situations, tactically sound or otherwise. Now you're just being dramatic. I fail to see how solutions to any of the points I brought up would require a super computer or an inordinate amount of development time to adjust and fix. I would hardly expect a complete code rewrite to make the AI more aware of nearby enemies, nearby gunfire, and friendly casualties. Tweaks in this area have already been made and they were but one of a dozen fixes in under 2 weeks. Hunt certainly is better, except that it doesn't react to casualties or enemy fire. In my scenario (and I have seen this), a large number of the squad would have continued to "sneak" forward while a bunch of casualties were sustained. Hunt only stops when enemy units are observed, which didn't happen. Regardless of how much better hunt would have been in a specific situation, the issues I've raised with other movement commands still remain, and should be resolved. Fantastic! This would certainly be expected behavior, but just doesn't happen. Movement orders are not cancelled, cover is not taken, and return fire is not executed. [ September 07, 2007, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

So - to add some actual info to the thread - here's another instance where I see this type of behavior fairly often - Friendly squad is on the ground near a building and told to go to an upper floor. Upon encountering an enemy unit in the floors between point A and point B, enemy unit is ignored whether it's spotted or not (Except with hunt.) Surprisingly enough, despite close proximity, the enemy unit is generally not spotted for quite some time. Said enemy unit is also ignored completely irregardless of casualties to the friendly unit. If the movement order is stopped by the player, the friendly unit generally goes to ground and crawls around to their designated firing positions at balconies and floors. Once they're in position, then and only then will they return fire. They do not return fire on the move, and they do not stop moving until the squad is "settled" onto one floor. The game seems to have no instances where human units shoot on the move - assuming here that it's an animation development cost, not an intended design decision. Other things of note - hunt is generally the most useful movement command for this type of stuff, but movement isn't canceled due to enemy fire or casualties. If it was, it would obviously make up quite a bit for the TacAI's current behavior in this department. However, as it is now, it's only marginally more useful than other movement commands. So - spotting at close range - my guess is that "spot checks" simply do not happen often enough relative to weapon effectiveness in close proximity. In other words - a squad can be wiped out before the game even attempts to figure out what that squad would actually see. Generally speaking, unless units are in very heavy cover, spotting should be automatic at point blank range - no "dice rolls" should be going on under the hood to determine if I can see a group of men in the road directly to my front. It doesn't make sense. It does make sense at longer distances of course. Spotting should be immediate and always successful at these types of ranges.

I think you may have missed my last three or four posts where I've mentioned that my points generally have nothing to do with tactics, and that I never admitted to this as being a "sound tactic." My observations were, again: a) Units not reacting to point blank fire Units not reacting to their squadmates getting cut down in front of them c) A squad of soldiers not being readily able to spot an enemy squad 10 feet to their direct front in open ground. (not in cover) Unfortunately this isn't the case. If I had been ambushed by a unit in cover, certainly I wouldn't have had a problem with my unit's inability to spot them. In the case that I highlighted, the enemy unit was in the clear, open roadway - which as far as I know, doesn't have abstracted cover (and shouldn't), let alone enough abstracted cover to hide an entire squad of men. I'll assume you're mistaking me for somebody else. I've certainly said no such thing about CMx1 games. They've all had their share of problems - what we're trying to do here is highlight them so that they can be fixed and create a more enjoyable experience for everyone. The more feedback, the better. Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, and hopefully the development team does read this thread and considers everybody's feedback, not just my own, and not just yours. Just isn't necessary. I think we're capable of debating a point without this type of stuff. As I've said before, my input is based on the hope of improving the game. With you at my side, anything is possible!

They were actually fairly strung out, because they had moved maybe 50 yards up to that point. My guess (with day old memory at this point) is maybe 15 seconds max, probably more around 10 seconds.

Sir, I ask again, where have I said anywhere in this thread that my tactics were sound, or that tactics had any relevance to the bugs I reported? So if this helps - I readily admit that my tactics suck. I'm horrible at this game. I have little more brainpower than the automatons that I command - in fact I'm barely self aware. If you want to dissect my tactics, I'll be even so glad as to start a thread in the tactics forum and you guys can have a field day over there. Make an instruction manual out of it and teach it to future officers in basic training as an example of "what not to do, ever." What I actually said was that I expect a squad of men to see another squad of men in the open a mere 10 feet away. I expect them to have a reaction to point blank enemy fire, and to have a reaction to having their squadmates cut down in plain view in front of them. I think you need to take a quick glance at our conversations here, and I think you might notice that you're the only one here slinging insults around. My points may be emphatic, but at no point have I attempted to personally insult anyone here. [ September 05, 2007, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

No problem Phillip! In fact I should take a cue from yourself and be a bit more civil about this. When I get a couple minutes free (at work now), I'll get a list of situations where I see this type of behavior most often. When I get home I'll grab the name of the scenario and try to get a good save situation for a repro.

In other words, you'd prefer to tell me that I'm wrong without having to tell me why I'm wrong. It's useless to the discussion if you don't back up your assertions. I fail to see where I *ever* spoke about tactics, or claimed that my tactics were perfect for the situation. Again and again I've iterated that my points are - 1) Squads failing to see opponents in the clear 10 feet away from them. 2) Failing to react to the sound of enemy fire 10 feet away from them. 3) Failing to react to squadmates being cut down. None of these have anything to do with tactics, and again, have happened under all movement types in all situations. I'm giving one example. Tear away at my tactics all you want, it's beside the point. I "gripe" if you will because I was handed an unfinished product riddled with missing features and bugs. Moreso, I "gripe" because I see a lot of potential ruined by very specific things. I share those specific things so that others can add in their own specific input, and perhaps at some point a developer will see it, make note of it, and fix it. It's called feedback. Games are better because of it. I suppose you failed to see the numerous posts where I applauded the things that are a positive force in the game. If you consider my feedback to be suspect, then take a look at the half dozen others that have chimed in here with similar feedback on these issues. [ September 05, 2007, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

Another fun fact - if the other stuff does not convince you that something is wrong - the execution squad could not even keep up with my stream of automatons - in fact, many of the soldiers were running over their friend's bodies past the corner to mindlessly continue the "jog" to their waypoint. That ten feet number was perhaps half that for some of them. Not a one saw a trace of the enemy.

Yes, and with your eyes closed of course. I think you might be having trouble visualizing just how far away ten feet really is. I think you might be having trouble imagining what an AK47 sounds like from ten feet away. It isn't "noise." Nine men successively falling in front of you isn't just "dust." Human men do not continue to jog around corners when half a dozen others have died in front of them in doing so, or even one, or even from the gunfire alone, which is so obviously close.

Absolute fantasty - a hopeless amount of micromanagement that cannot and will not happen if I control more than a platoon sized force - nevermind that given previous incarnations of this bug, it could have just as easily happened *before* the corner, the location to where you so astutely told them quick move. Bad tactics, my friend! No, I ordered them to move quickly, not to put on blindfolds and to cover the ears of the man in front of them. The AI in the game is not reacting to sights and sounds that a normal human force would react to. Fact. That's all.

Sorry, no - jogging does not result in blindness and deafness. Ten men, actually, slaughtered to the last. I don't expect them to see targets to their flank at 100 meteres while jogging, or hear a distant tank. I do expect them to see a syrian *squad* 10 feet in front of them in open ground, I do expect them to hear machinegun fire 10 feet in front of them, and I do expect them to react to their squadmates being dropped *right in front of them* one by one by said squad and noise. The same behavior occurs with every move type. [ September 05, 2007, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

The number one thing bothering me right now - just quit a game because of it, absolutely frustrating. It's happened in both of the scenarios I've played today, and it seems completely unavoidable in MOUT. Squads don't stop moving when they're taking fire/casualties. I had a squad moving under "quick" from point A to point B in an urban environment - as they turned a corner, each one of them in turn was mowed down by an enemy squad that was lying prone 10 feet away. Number 1 - you see people 10 feet away from you. My squad never spotted the enemy squad - though I knew they were there because of muzzleflashes. They can spot a hidden ATGM team 500 meters away from them, but they don't spot a gaggle of syrians laying in the road *RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM* Number 2 - the movement order was never cancelled, or halted. The entire squad, to the last man, walked into the ambush. Number 3 - none of my men ever stop to return fire in this case, even when they spot the enemy team. If you HAVE to keep moving, why not fire while on the move to at least supress whoever's shooting at you? Better yet, why the hell are you running towards a pile of bodies and the sound of machinegun fire a couple of feet away from you? This doesn't happen just at short distance, either. I *always* have to cancel the move orders myself. Issue a "move" order and observe that even though your men are getting cut down, they continue to stroll along like they're on a quiet patrol. No stopping, no return fire, no seeking cover. Absolute vapid nonsense. [ September 05, 2007, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

Have to agree - it seems that most weapon systems are over-modeled in the game, save maybe tank cannon and ATGM rounds. Small arms and unguided munitions are ridiculously effective right now, and does not match reality. RPG's are fired in salvo's for a reason, and no, it isn't because the gunners are untrained. I don't know if they're just modeling optimum "firing range" accuracy in all cases or what, but something just doesn't add up.

flippin fantastic scenario! By far the best I've played. Got a draw on my first try - I foolishly used up my artillery too quickly and had to slug it out in the town without support.

You're not doing anything wrong. It's still broken.

double post

Issuing a move command onto a building should highlight the door through the building model so that you don't have to pan and rotate until you find it. Either that, or some sort of "highlight doors" key that a player can press at any time to see doors through buildings. Think of diablo, if you've ever played it - the function that highlighted selectable objects. Also - wouldn't allowing soldiers to enter through windows solve a lot of this? How about being able to select what entrance you go through, just like you have the ability to select what floor to go to? How about a path preview that would show exactly where your troops are going to enter the building? All kinds of solutions to the problem. The current way of doing things is certainly tedious and time consuming.

I think his point was why would a squad grab a javelin and not the launcher for it?

Anyone having any luck with the air and artillery assets hitting within a couple hundred yards of their target? I've got rockets flying off of the map completely, and bombs missing the entire town, let alone the buildings they're targetted at. I'm using the FO of course, with 5 minute delays. Are they so inaccurate because I'm assigning multiple missions to the FO at once?

Can't wait to try this one out. "No plan for red side" - doesn't that mean that you shouldn't play as blue? Just want to make sure I'm playing the correct team.

One thing I like to do is to split my rifle squads and have the sections occupy different floors, or different sides of the same floor. Really improves survivability, especially against HE. Balconies are murder traps, especially in terms of being spotted. I wish that rifleman wouldn't automatically go out on them unless told to do so.

Somewhat offtopic - but where have you found source material for this information? I've been looking for good AAR/debriefing stuff on the conflict, but haven't seen much.

So I was using old 94.xx drivers to get shock force to run at a reasonable framerate. I tried out the new BETA 163.44 drivers that were released for Bioshock - and it looks like they run Shock Force a bit better than the old ones. I have a 7950. If anybody has an 8800, please try these and let us know if they work well. http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_rel70betadriver.html

I've had indestructible tanks as well. One random tank out of a platoon seems to be completely impervious to Javelins (8 to 10 direct hits) - every other tank was taken out with a single hit.