A Canadian Cat

Have you opened a ticket at thier helpdesk? https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com I use avast too. When I run an instal program it puts it on hold while it scans and that generates error messages but if I just ignore it and let avast do it's thing eventually the install starts. I always install BFC games to a white listed directory. So, running the game is never scanned.

Let's step back from the personal insults and try to stick to the informative parts of this thread.

Right making it block based is the better design. Case 1 do this block, case 2 do this block, case three do this block, optional default after x minutes do this block. To do that you would really want to change the UI for the AI authoring quite a bit. The small column space for the order flow doesn't really lend itself to branching and cases. Don't forget any of those blocks could have other cases with more branching. Not sure where the limits would be. I think that this is the way to go at some point. Hopefully it will happen.

I look at it this way. If my play history shows that there are no issues in previous similar situations I don't micro manage and let the squads do their thing. If past history indicates that bad things might happen I start to be more of a micro manager. That helps reduce the pain factor by not micromanaging everything - just what needs it.

I think this happens, or happens more often, with full squads. I almost always split squads into fire teams and can't remember the last time I saw this behavior. Other players, a few weeks ago IIRC, mentioned this running around to the backdoor behavior. So you are not alone. My work around is split squads into fire teams. Yeah there is more going on that just full squad entering a building. I am playing All Flights Delayed and I am clearing medium risk buildings with full squads. So, far no unexpected entry choices. I think the driver has to do with dence urban terrain and stand alone buildings with two doors. In other words I am not seeing it with a large multiple module buildings only single ones with plenty of walls, fence and or vegetation around. At any rate I think @MOS:96B2P's solution of split teams is a good one. Also include some pauses so multiple teams are not trying to enter at the same time.

I think it was a pretty good summary and I don't think you were trying say "Steve said" anyway, so ,I think you are good to go.

I just remembered the one I thought of as I was reading your post but forgot about when I started writing: Dynamic spreading fire. I know I want it too. Just the amount of work to get something reasonable seems huge and plenty of cases just will not be a factor (rain, snow, muddy ground etc).

Why? Just curious.

Cool idea for a thread. I would add a major reworking of the ammo resupply to make it more realistic but also more flexible. It currently plays a useful role and making it more of a thing would not really add much. Your last two flares and more engineering vehicles are actually ones I would like to see. But your analysis is correct - plenty of work for limited gain. I just would put those at the to of this low priority list

Bloody hell! Don't let the harsh arbitrary and un backed-up poor criticism of that "player" put you off deigning something in the future. Especially since others have said they enjoyed it. Just put him on your ignore list - I just did...

Wow. OK

Ah GOTO statements awesome /s Back to being serious: The ability to add switch or even if then capabilities to the AI planning would be wonderful. Having the ability to do that is desired. Hacking it in with a GOTO type approach is not a good idea. You might think it is easier than doing it right but it is not. On top of which it would make writing and deciphering AI plans much more difficult. Which also means you need a GOTO statement at order location 15 to skip over 16-25 if your system chooses to go to order 10. Add too much of that and or get that wrong and good luck figuring that plan error out. I think that adding a multi branch programming system to the AI would be awesome. I wold love to see it designed into the game. I think your suggestion is not a good solution at all - sorry.

Also check your spam folder and if you run into trouble or don't see the email contact support: Battlefront Help desk

No apology needed - there are are over 600 000 posts on these forums so it will take you a while to catch up On second thought don't catch up just play the games we have and enjoy them

I stand corrected. This is good to know. I suspect I had hide or cover arc commands on subsequent hunt order segments which were cancelled when the soldiers were engaged while executing an earlier segment. I tested this in the released version in a cooked up scenario and found that once they cancelled their movement (because they were hunting) they reacted as if they needed to find cover. This leads them to automatically plot a withdrawal order. As we all know this process is not perfect with the Tac AI - in my test case they were on a street and the sought cover in a near by house - perfect. In the OPs case they made a poor choice. Statistically, if we were to recalculate the turn each of us could have seen different results but I suspect given the terrain I would mostly see good choices and the OP would see more poor ones. Such is the imperfect world we play in. The good news is that the patch coming for the v4 engine reduces the tendency of the tac AI to decide to withdraw from a fire fight. I'm not saying it's suddenly going to be perfect but you will see less instances of the Tac AI deciding to create its own orders. With less auto generation of withdrawal orders there will be less poor choices made by the Tac AI. We should all be happier. I am forbidden from confirming that the patched version of FB behaves better - so don't ask.

Plenty of often requested ideas there. I'll summarize some of the discussion that has happened in the past on those same requests. Agreed lots of people want to see this too. IIRC Steve didn't reject it but also said it was not high on his list. The stated plan for the eastern front was to create a new game for each year of the war with modules to fill it out. CMRT is the first of these along with the planned module. We don't have visibility into any more details than that. Another one that lots of people have asked for. Again from memory I think Steve did say he wasn't interested in this at all. Same with this one. The other problem here is BFC have done historical conflicts and hypothetical future conflicts. They have not done a hypothetical conflict in the past. Also note that none of their games cover decades long time frames. I think CMFI will have the longest time and it goes from 43 to 45. CMBS and CMSF don't even cover a full year. All that to say that if they did do a cold war gone hot scenario (which they have never indicated would be likely) they would likely dream up a scenario that lasted a few months in some particular year and that's it. WW1 I, personally, would not want and I doubt would be popular. Korea, yes but I have seen no indication that BFC has any such plans. Vietnam is another one that has come up before and generated only a little interest - none of which came from BFC Yep, we will get lots of great stuff but it will be limited to what they have time for. I also agree there is a bright future.

Reported

Cool, thanks guys. Since we have the report and pictures I don't even have to fire up the game - issue reported.

Oh god that bloody trade deadline. Usually its annoying as all the sports casters gossip about it for months. Don't those guys have something else to talk about - like, I don't know, games maybe. This year is worse for me since my team is in the basement and the gossip is they are going to trade their three top players - which would be insane. So, while I wish for the patch to be released as much as the next player, I really, really, want the trade deadline to be tomorrow so I don't have to listen to the gossip any more / can deal with the aftermath of a terrible set of trades.

I assume you mean the US. I see no evidence that US policy makers in the White House believe there is a "threat from the east". So, sounds like you are saying that the German People agree with President Trump.

There already is a differentiation between which scope or view ports are damaged. The reporting is just generic.

Is that sarcasm? Are you allowed to do that on the internet?

Don't forget that the interior of buildings has abstrated interior walls and furniture. So even those big multiple connected modular buildings are not big empty spaces.

Ah I see what you mean. The hunt order would get cancelled as soon as they spotted the enemy and with it the hide command too. So at that point they are free to act on thier own. With the over tendency to withdraw from fire fights in 2.00 I think we see this outcome.

Yes, this is the place to report bugs. I'm going to need a little help with that video though. What do you think it shows? I see a team moving up finding cover and making contact only to get hit from multiple directions and taken out.