IICptMillerII

I believe what Bulletpoint is referring to here is what triggers the bug. On map mortars and off map mortars are both indirect fire. However, on map mortar fire does not cause infantry to flee their trenches, whereas off map mortar fire does. In your video, are the mortars on or off map? I'm assuming they are on map based on the fact that the targeted infantry did not break and flee from the barrage. If they were off map, can you please send me the file of the mission you used for making the video? I'm curious to see for myself if the infantry flee from the fortifications. In my testing, regardless of veterancy/morale, or the type of off map artillery, the TacAI always chooses to flee.

Quite understandable. Thanks for the reply!

Was wondering, are there any plans to add more features to the 3D preview part of the editor? For example placing buildings and other features (roads, terrain, etc) in this mode? I find one of the more tedious parts of using the editor is having to constantly go back and forth between the 2D map where I place everything, and the 3D view to look and see if it all looks right. Just being able to do that stuff in 3D would streamline the whole process and make it all much easier in my opinion. If there are no plans to do this, its not the end of the world. The fact that CM has a comprehensive editor as is is infinitely better than not having one at all.

If I had to hazard a guess, it would have something to do with the new spacing mechanic. Just a guess though.

Wrong. Also wrong. Deaf ears and all that, so I'll leave it to SLIM.

??? Literally the entire point of foxholes and trenches is that it protects infantry from direct fire, and fires in general, to include shrapnel from falling artillery. The best way to defeat these types of fortifications (aside from clearing them with your own infantry) is by using high angle of attack weapons, such as mortars. The whole reason modern armies such as Russia and the US are investing so much in airburst ammunition is for this reason. It gives direct fire weapons the same effect on target as high angle of attack weapons.

Quick update for those who haven't seen yet; Steve has said that they are aware of the bug and it is a top priority to fix. What he said in full can be viewed on the new forum section, linked here for convenience: Good news!

I agree. I would like a command that would essentially be a trigger for the individual unit. Lets say you have a bazooka team in a house. You give it a fall back waypoint (just a move order somewhere) and then hit the 'shoot and scoot' command. What the command would do is keep the team in place until they fire the bazooka. Once they've fired, they fall back along the movement point plotted. You could obviously couple the command with target arcs and target commands as well. In essence it would be a glorified pause command, just without the guesswork of timing on the part of the player. Just an idea, but I think it would be very helpful for many different units. Tanks, anti-tank infantry, and other things such as snipers/scouts, and other soft assets that you want to preform a quick hit and run.

Excellent! Beyond overjoyed from hearing this! Knowing this, I will definitely be buying all the new modules and CMSF2 when they are released. With the bug, I was hesitant to buy more content, as right now I find 3.0 much more enjoyable to play. Thanks for the update! Very much looking forward to all the upcoming releases!

Thanks for the update! Great to hear that everything is proceeding and that we can expect some new toys relatively soon. Any news about tweaks to the current 4.0 upgrade, regarding AI behavior?

Excellent information here, and the videos are well done as usual as well! Thanks for taking the time to put all this together!

I would recommend staying at game engine 3 for now. The bugs in the TacAI logic make the game infuriating at times to play, and at the least it just becomes a massive headache. If you would like to see for yourself, I made a thread and a video discussing the current issues with v4 in the CMRT forum that I'll link here for your convenience. Take a look and see what you think.

It does appear that we have shed light on the issue and it is being considered at this time. I and others have been in contact with some of the testers/content creators here on the forums and they report the same. As I mentioned earlier, its likely we haven't heard anything from the devs because they are backlogged and trying to work through that at the moment, which is completely understandable. An update on the second video I had planned. I think for now I'm going to hold off on making it. I feel the first video is more than adequate at illustrating the primary issue, and a second video would be a bit overkill at this point. My primary intent with the video was to show 1) there is a problem and 2) what that problem is. If the devs were to say that they needed more evidence of a problem, then I would go ahead and make a second video, but at this point I am content that its been seen and understood. If others have further evidence/examples they would like to post, feel free to use this thread as a place to put it.

Now you're hating on the children? Is nothing sacred to you? And FYI, I do have a poster of the M113 helotank, signed by Stormin Norman and McMaster, as well as a challenge coin from each. McMaster signed it "Logistics be damned, on to Moscow!" Truly inspirational to be honest.

Fuel efficiency at its finest right there! Legend says Putin himself goes to bed every night, cold with fear over this majestic beast. Sweden did not purchase it unfortunately, due to complaints about its lack of ability to swim underwater and torpedo enemy merchant vessels.

Mirror much? Every single point you have made in this thread have been addressed, yet you refuse to accept any of the explanations given, while flat out ignoring others. I'm not the one being a 'little child' over things I don't want to hear. That would be you. The Abrams does not have an exhaust port that the Rebels can exploit with X-Wings to catastrophically blow it up. The Abrams does not consume all of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves every time it drives to a battlefield. Your opinions are wrong, and you clearly do not know "for sure" what you are talking about.

Yes, when you continually refuse to acknowledge the very valid points brought up to literally every single one of your "complaints" it goes from a 'mature discussion' to bashing your head against a wall. Frankly, its time to stop.

Lmao uh what? This myth that the Abrams is completely useless because it "guzzles gas like a typical Murican abomination" seriously needs to die. Sweden bought the Leopard 2 over the Abrams because it was significantly cheaper than the Abrams, and the Abrams variant Sweden would have gotten did not have the full armor suite. This ridiculous notion that Sweden bought Leo 2s because "muh gas" and "muh armor" is absurd. The Leo 2 was cheap, plain and simple. Ahh yes, I forgot that the US Army only ever trains for the best possible case scenario. Nevermind all that stuff Panzer said about NTC being "hard." What does he know anyways? I think the solution here is obvious; the US Army needs to get rid of all these gas guzzling tanks and replace them with the latest model of Prius. Just slap some 4x4 tires on em and have an infantryman riding shotgun with a Javelin. Boom, problem solved. It can drive half way across Europe on one tank of gas, and has perfect anti-tank capability thanks to the Javelin. Hell, put another infantryman in the back seat with a Stinger. Now you're protected from those dreaded KA-52s you mentioned! Check and mate, pesky Russians. Remember, the only thing worse than a WW3 scenario, is a WW3 scenario that also is heavy on carbon emissions!

My understanding is the vehicle pack was made for CMBN to add a small collection of specialty vehicles that were used in the Normandy timeframe, but there were not enough new vehicles to warrant a whole new module. None of the other games need a vehicle pack at the moment. They are either complete (CMBN) or have future modules planned that will add new vehicles and formations to them (CMBS, CMFI, CMFB, etc) What I would like to see are more battlepacks. They are a great way to extend the life of the various titles. For example, I like the US campaign from the CMBS battlepack more than the base campaign that came with the game. I'm hoping we start to see more battlepacks come out regularly for all the titles now that the concept has been tested and proven.

My guess on when we can see this addressed is when the 4.0 upgrade comes for CMSF. To me, that seems like the most logical point, as they will have the code cracked open so to speak in order to apply it all to CMSF. Should be the easiest time for them to make the fix and include it in testing for CMSF2. Let me be clear: I have no insider knowledge on this. This is just my best guess. While it would be nice to have a hotfix sooner, I don't think waiting for CMSF2 is that bad. BFC is a bit backlogged right now, but we know that they are planning to have CMSF2 out by the end of the year, based on their revised business model of 2 modules and 1 title/major upgrade per year. Steve mentioned this in the Lend=Lease thread here in the CMRT forum if I remember correctly. Seeing as how they are currently backlogged, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait a bit longer, say Q1 2018, for CMSF2 and a possible fix to the 4.0 behavior. Not that bad all things considered.

In CMSF, if the temperature is set to the hottest setting, it causes your men to fatigue much faster. Not entirely sure what all the various temperature settings effect, but temperature is simulated as a factor. The blizzard setting is mostly just a setting for the rate of snowfall, not necessarily a full blown blizzard. If you set the snow conditions to max (ground completely snowy, very cold weather, blizzard rate of snow and fast winds) you'll see line of sight impacted a lot more than if you just set the snowfall to blizzard.

I should have posted this a while ago. This thread slipped my mind. Apologies for that. Here is the link to my thread on a video showing the current TacAI behavior in v4 compared to v3: Its in the CMRT forums because I used CMRT to make the video. Its been up for two weeks now, so you've all likely seen it, but I figured I would post the link regardless for those who maybe do not frequent the CMRT forums. Everything else is explained in the thread/video.

Noted, and noted! Thanks for the input!

RE Trees; Please take this conversation to a different thread. This thread is specifically for the new TacAI behaviors, and has nothing to do with how trees are modeled in game. Back on topic, if there are any ideas anyone has for the part two video that may help to better showcase the current issue, I would appreciate hearing them. As of right now I have a few ideas that I've picked up from this thread. Hoping to include a few more in order for the second video to be substantial and worth the effort. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

Not sure. When the behavior works as intended (such as an infantry team getting out of the way of a tank) its a welcome addition. The skill level, or difficulty setting does not effect the TacAI at all. Skill level determines things such as how much information you get on enemy spotted units, and on the lowest setting it allows for borg spotting, which means if one unit sees an enemy, all other friendly units immediately know where/what the spotted enemy is. There are other effects, such as the rate of buddy aid and C2 effects, but none of it effects how the TacAI behaves. No need to apologize! Its a good question that I'm glad you asked. Hopefully it will help clarify for others who may be wondering the same.