IICptMillerII

Thanks for the positive feedback! I'm trying to keep all of this as constructive as possible, both because I hold no ill-will over this, and I understand that going about this in a constructive manner is the best way to go forward. I haven't tested this extensively yet. I've only observed it happening a few times in the same battle and chalked it up to a new side effect of the displace behavior. I'll do more testing on my own to see if I can replicate it, and if I can I will include it in the next video.

Having play tested this as both BluFor and RedFor I can attest to the difficulty posed to BluFor. The Russians will likely lose the vast majority of their vehicles, and a good amount of their Infantry, but if played properly they have a more than better chance of winning the scenario. As the US, you cannot afford to make mistakes, both in your overall plan, or in your execution. Without spoiling anything, my one piece of advice for the US player is to keep your forces together. Meaning, do not divide your forces into independent elements that cannot mutually support one another. This is a tactical no no in real life that will really hurt you here if you commit it. Its a great scenario, great map, and a ton of fun!

This is a big reason. The quality of stock scenarios and maps have gone up tremendously with the past few releases. This is because of what MikeyD said, many of the best scenario authors now make the stock scenarios for the newer games, which is good because it means the devs can spend more time working on the game itself, instead of being bogged down in the time consuming editor. Another reason I think we aren't seeing as many user made scenarios for CMFB is because it covers a niche part of WWII at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an influx of scenarios come winter. Plus, once a module comes along that extends CMFI and adds more forces (commonwealth, German formations, etc) we will see more scenarios being made as well.

I completely agree. The point of this thread is not to trash CM. It is to point out a possible flaw so that it can be more easily fixed. Even with the flaw, CM is a far better historical combined arms simulation than anything else out there, by far. This bug doesn't take away from that at all. I still highly recommend anyone thinking about getting any of the CM titles to do so. That being said: I agree here as well. Right now I'm having more fun playing v3 than playing v4 due to the current bug. The good news is that this has been brought to the attention of the developers. I'm very confident we will see a tweak/fix for it. However, we probably won't see said fix until after the CMFI module release. BFC seems to be a tad backlogged at the moment. If we don't get a fix after the FI module comes out, we will surely get something when CMSF is upgraded to engine 4. That's likely going to be the easiest time for them to take a crack at the code. If anything it's just one more reason to be excited for CMSF.

I'm planning on adding a hide showcase in the next video to show that it does not change the behavior at all. As Rinaldi mentioned, the only workaround right now is the pause command. However, this isn't a perfect workaround for the reasons he mentioned, plus an additional issue. In the WWII titles, a heavy weapons team, when given a pause command, will stop firing their heavy weapon (such as an MG-42) after the displace behavior is triggered. So while they will not pack up and run, they also won't fire the MG anymore, until you unpause them. And as already mentioned, all of this is a moot point when it comes to single player.

It does, and for the most part it works as intended. The idea is that instead of just sitting in an exposed position like the middle of a road and getting blasted away by direct HE fire, the Infantry will instead seek to displace and find better cover. The primary issue, the that when Infantry are already in that good cover, they still displace. It is my opinion that Infantry should only be displacing from direct or indirect HE if they are caught in the open, or if they are in a building and are taking direct HE fire. Otherwise, they should not be abandoning good cover, as they have a better chance of survival if they stay out, as well as better maintaining a defensive posture overall. This is interesting. I haven't noticed this specifically myself, though I have not tested/looked for it. I'll play around with the editor next time I get a chance to see if I get the same results as you did. Right now, it's my feeling that if the current displacement bug is fixed, what you posted about will be much less of an issue/annoyance. In my opinion, it makes a very many single player scenarios unplayable in the current state in all titles running v4. Not all of them, but a good portion of them. It was the single player scenario "Red Hordes" in CMRT that finally convinced me the new behavior is bugged. Over in the CMFI forum there is a longer running thread discussing if the new behavior makes the CMFI campaigns unplayable. Most of them feature assaults against well entrenched defenders. You can imagine the concern of the thread, having seen some of the new behavior in question for yourself. Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks for the input. I will be sure to add a 'hiding' test to the next video.

Yes, under the right conditions, in 3.0 infantry would eventually break after taking direct or indirect fires. However, that happened at a much lower frequency than it does in 4.0. In the first part of the video, when it is comparing the behavioral differences between the 3.0 and 4.0 engine, the troops are set to the exact same stats. In 4.0, the conscripts run. In 3.0, they do not. Further, when you max out the stats of the infantry in 4.0, they still run. This shows that the behavior is not tied to a particular stat level, but it applies to all infantry regardless of skill in 4.0. In 3.0 how brittle, or likely an infantry unit is to displace under direct fire was tied to its morale state and its veterancy level. In 4.0, neither of those matter. The first shell to land close to a team, regardless of its current stats, will displace. I apologize for not labeling the stats of all the infantry in the test. It was an oversight. I'm not overly savvy with video editing, and the video I made for this thread is actually the longest video I've ever made. Please forgive the amateur nature of it. I am planning on doing a follow up video after I get more feedback on new things to include and improve upon. That video will include the 4.0 TacAI's reaction to small arms fire. I did some initial testing last night to see if it is as blatant as the indirect fleeing behavior is, and so far it is not. Right now my feeling is, if it does turn out there is a bug with the current 4.0 AI, and if that is fixed, then any issue with small arms behavior will be fixed as well. This is precisely my conclusion as well. I believe this to be a bug with the new behavior, not a fatal flaw with the TacAI programming. Happy to help! Thats why I've gone through the effort.

It is not even required that the infantry suffers a casualty before they attempt to displace. The primary trigger of the flight response is a shell landing in close proximity. This is best showcased in the video when the German MG-42 team set to max stats packs up and runs the moment a shell lands near it. They don't even take a casualty before doing this. I tend to agree with your end results here as a solution, but I do not think a complete reworking of the TacAI is necessary. The TacAI in v3 was fine. The new behavior is supposed to allow the TacAI to displace when under threat of direct HE (example: not standing still in the middle of the open as they get blasted by a tank) or to seek cover if caught in the open during an artillery barrage. (example: dashing into a nearby building/fortification if in the open when shells start landing) The current problem is a problem because the displacing behavior triggers regardless of whether or not the infantry is already in cover. My solution would be to make it so infantry only displace if caught in the open. They would not displace if already in good cover. Please stay on topic. This thread is about how the 4.0 TacAI reacts to incoming HE (both direct and indirect) and how there could be a flaw/bug in the displacement logic. It is not about the performance of artillery or about the effects of tree burst. Start another thread to discuss this if you feel the need, but I would ask you do not continue to discuss it here. I agree, however I want to stress that I do not consider this video to be a conclusive test. It is only meant to be a showcase of readily observable behavior in 4.0. This is true. I very much want to avoid the rabbit hole of debating the TacAI in general. That is not my intention here. What I am trying to point out is that the TacAI behavior in v3 is overall better when it comes to how they react to indirect fires. Again, the improvement to the TacAI in 4.0 is supposed to allow the TacAI to automatically displace if they are getting blasted away in the open. If this was what actually occurred in game, there would be no issue here. The problem is that while the TacAI will displace after getting blasted in the open, they also run when they are already in good cover. This is the primary issue.

Right, but one is much more vulnerable running around while tree bursts are going off than they would be if they just stay put in their trenches. Again, the instinct when under artillery fires is to "get small," as in finding the nearest bit of adequate cover and staying there until the shelling lifts. This means dashing into a foxhole/trench/house, not out of those. The latter being what is currently happening in V4. Plus, and correct me if I am wrong, but I thought one of the reasons (besides having the benefit of being hidden from non-LOS) that trenches were reworked from terrain features in SF to what they are now is because now they provide a cover bonus that includes some cover from airburst. There isn't any overhead cover on the trenches visually represented, but it is simulated to an extent. All of this is besides the point however. Regardless of whether or not the fortifications are under tree cover, or in the middle of the open, the behavior is the same. The infantry, regardless of skill, leadership or motivation, run away from good cover, into the open when under artillery fire. It is completely nonsensical. Another quick note on my video; some may notice the mission time. The mission I was using was the second mission in the training campaign. There are 30 minutes (30 turns) in the mission. Note that for all of the tests, this behavior occurs within the first minute of gameplay. This behavior is not the result of infantry 'cracking' under a prolonged barrage. This behavior occurs when the very first shell lands close enough to an infantry team/squad. To further the point, if the behavior was so common and so readily triggered in just the first minute of this battle (again regardless of leadership/motivation/skill) it follows that others are experiencing the same behavior. I will likely make a follow-up video after getting more feedback, and thinking up a few new ways to show off the current behavior. For example, I intend to show that this fleeing behavior can be triggered by small arms fire. While not as serious a problem as the artillery fleeing, in my opinion it makes infantry a bit too brittle. In the follow-up video I will be sure to include a scene showing infantry in foxholes/trenches that are not under trees being shelled, and their reactions. Again, all of this is not meant to be a "damning criticism" of the game. I'm simply trying to show what I believe to be a bug with the hopes that showing it will help to fix it.

I think the primary issue here is that units are deciding to break from cover and flee into the open when under indirect fire. I don't have a problem with infantry units making a break for a building or a foxhole if they get caught in the open. I do have an issue when they are already in a building/foxhole/trench, and decide to displace during the middle of a barrage. All it ends up doing is breaking up the cohesiveness of a position and more importantly, getting men needlessly killed. Hopefully the video I posted shows this behavior adequately. I have also come to the conclusion that the v3 behavior is better for right now. Its a shame because I really do like all of the improvements that came with the v4 upgrade. Another point worth making on this matter: the pause command workaround (where you simply give all your men you do not want fleeing from their positions an indefinite pause order) doesn't always work. Not only is it very tedious to be managing everyones pause states, but what can happen is if a deployed MG team is given a pause command, a barrage lands near it and triggers the flight response but it does not flee due to the pause order, what happens is they will no longer man the gun. In order to get them back on the gun, you have to unpause them, and then hope that they do not flee. There is also some questionable behavior when it comes to fleeing from small arms fire as well. I may make a second video that illustrates these issues if I think there is a need. Again, my goal is simply to showcase the behavior we are seeing, so that if it does need to be tweaked, the dev team has a better idea of what it is specifically that is happening that needs to be tweaked.

Ahh thanks for the clarification! I'm glad to hear that you guys are considering some tweaks. For me the main issue is infantry fleeing from cover into the open while under indirect fires, not the other way around. I've made a video and thread about it which I'll link for your convenience: I know that the video is not a conclusive test, but hopefully it is able to show the specific behavior that I think needs to be tweaked, so that you guys may have a better idea on what to focus on. In that case I hope we don't hear from you until at least CMSF2 is out! Kidding aside, its glad to know that you are all hard at work. Very much looking forward to the upcoming modules/patches/games!

Having played with engine 4 for half a year now and getting to know how it works, I finally decided to make a video about the current behavior of the TacAI. The basic premise is that the new TacAI behavior is possibly bugged when it comes to their reaction to indirect fires. I'm starting a new thread, and in the CMRT part of the forum because the game I used to compare the differences in the TacAI is CMRT, and I am hoping that this thread will serve as a collection point for further discussion on the v4.0 behavior. A few notes on the video itself. I'm currently running two installations of CMRT. One with version 3 and one with version 4. My version 4 install is modded, whereas my version 3 is not. The scenario I am using is the second mission from the training mission in CMRT. I used the campaign unpacker tool to extract it, and added a single 4 tube battery of 82mm off map mortars to the Russian side. I also tweaked the veterancy, motivation, and leadership values of the Germans a few times to see if it yielded different results. Each time, the fire mission I called in was the same; medium Rof and duration, area target that targeted the same spot every time. It was a first turn artillery barrage, so there was no need for spotting rounds. I understand that this video is not a conclusive test, I did not intend for it to be that. It is simply to show a comparison between common behaviors found in versions 3 and 4, and to show that many of the behaviors encountered in version 4 are not optimal. It's my personal opinion that there is a bug here, but again I have not run enough tests to accumulate the data necessary to say that for certain. If others have documented examples of the current 4.0 behavior, please feel free to post it here. With any luck, we can show that the behavior is at the very least a bit off, and it could help BFC in tweaking/fixing it.

I too am eagerly awaiting some feedback from BFC on this issue. Hopefully a fix is not as far off as it may appear. I seem to recall hearing that one of the big behind the scenes updates with the new launcher system, that 4.0 introduced to all the titles (except CMSF) is that they can now release an update to the engine that can be installed once to all owned CM games. If thats the case, when the fix is ready, it should be easier now to apply the patch. Hopefully we hear something soon.

Apparently, the 4.0 behavior is being worked on: I'm glad to hear that tweaks are being worked on. I think 4.0 is a great upgrade that just needs a few tweaks. Hopefully we will get some news about it soon, as well as the tweaks themselves.

Ahh ok thanks for the clarification.

This is really good to hear. Even though it may be a while, I'm glad that a fix is on their radar for the wonky 4.0 behavior. Thanks for the small bit of info!

This is really interesting seeing it happen side by side like this. Thanks for the pictures and explanation! One question though, what difficulty is this being played on? I wonder if there is a significant difference between "Warrior" and "Iron" for example. Detailed grid references for every known and possibly known contact? Yes that would take a while, but that isn't whats being simulated here. The MTLB is telling the tank, "There are troops in the town, a vehicle by these trees, and a vehicle by those trees, and bad guys beyond this line on the map." That type of information doesn't take long at all to convey. Now, the tanks have a rough idea of where the enemy might be, which means they pay closer attention to those areas, which means they will spot enemy units faster. This is exactly how the C2 and spotting mechanic works in CM. I would say everything happening is perfectly realistic and reasonable.

John, ever since the experiences of Vietnam the US Army (and military in general) has sought to "own the night." That saying has become doctrine for a lot of units and types of operations. For example, the Rangers conduct nearly all of their raids at night, due to the massive advantages thermal and other weapon/helmet mounted optics grant them. As to the 2009 video, that is likely on the proposed "Land Warrior" program, which never got off the ground for various reasons. One being that the batteries to power the system for the individual soldier were much to heavy and didn't last long enough in the field before becoming dead weight. The Stryker was supposed to me a cornerstone of the project, acting as the centralized hub of digital information flow. I believe the M25 grenade launcher is also a product of the "Land Warrior" system, though indirectly, due to its use of data linked ammunition. A very interesting project that just wasn't practical in reality. Maybe someday though.

I thought this was a great shot. It looks like a proper warzone From an on going PBEM of "To the Shores of Tripoli."

No problem John. I was under the impression CMBS does in fact simulate the DSNVG. I recall in one of ChrisNDs preview videos he did a while back for CMBS mentioning the DSNVG being modeled in game. Not sure which video it was, so I can't provide the link at the moment.

I clearly stated that the TWS is a weapon optic, as in an optical device mounted on a rifle. Never said it was a goggle of any type.

The squad leader, his assistant and I believe one rifleman are equipped with thermal optics in a standard US rifle squad in game. You can see for yourself. Just put the mouse cursor over the squad leaders weapon in the UI and it will display M4A1/TWS or something to that effect.

Yes they do, if equipped. Its the TWS, which is a thermal optic.

Right, and the game gives you the ability to reflect this. The training levels of units can be relative. If you want to show that US troops are much better trained, then you can set them at a higher training level then their opponents. For example, set the US to "Veteran" and the Russians to "Regular." Or you can set the US to "Crack" and the Russians to "Veteran." It can be used as a relative scale. The WWII titles show this off a lot, particularly with Airborne forces. In most scenarios they are set to "Veteran" or higher with very high motivation to reflect their better training.