Howler

This should bring you up to speed. I believe it will include most of the other threads discussing the same problem... I'm a little surprised that no one has provided any save games showing this faulty behavior. I sent one to @IanL last month. I'd assumed others had done the same. There's even a step by step description on how to replicate this problem playing the 'Roadblock' scenario. What exactly does this hotfix correct if we're still trying to collect test cases?

There is an AMD Video GFX specific issue whereby you need to turn Shaders ON in order to see hit decals. It shows more often as white circles for me. If you are running an AMD card, you can go to advanced options from the main menu and select Shaders ON. Or, do it in-game by using the hotkey (usually Alt-R). This only applies to AMD.

All I'm asking is what are these issues as they relate to CMBS and CMSF2. If we knew what they were - we could help you try to duplicate them.

What does it fix in the modern (BS/SF2) titles? TOE? Faulty evasion? QB or PBEM?

Not wanting to shoot the messenger but I would have thought the more than a single test case would be used to verify fitness. Were any of the save games provided not used for verification? No one has stated that this issue should be completely eliminated. We just want it to be uncommon if not rare. War stories are made of such rare occurrences and something we all appreciate of the game. Being able to see teams cycling to and fro towards danger more often than not - does not make for a good game experience IMHO. I don't see the point of applying this patch until the overarching 'evade' issue is addressed. While I am appointed, I'm encouraged by the timely response.

A tweak is expected. Meanwhile, for your reading pleasure...

Good question. All I got was a non-reply reply to a query as to whether this 'tweak' (BFC characterization) was going to apply to the modern titles (BS/SF2). It would also be nice to see what behavior exactly is in need of a tweak.

As long as stationary regular units run back an AS to be out of LOS when receiving small fire from known contacts in front of them - you can call it whatever you want. Seeing them commonly do cycles of forward and backward seemed off... Do you know which titles are getting this tweak? I'm hoping it will be made available to both BS and SF2...

Thanks. I missed this as I don't frequent the CMFI forum often as it's not a title I own.

I'd hoped to add a single reference of 'Evasion' and 'Bug' containing an 'offical' determination while keeping the page count to under one.

I started a new thread so as not to miss the determination on this matter first raised in this thread a month ago... Is it working as intended in CMBN and simply a matter of becoming accustomed to this new normal? Or, are more save games required before anything further can be determined? Or, it is an issue and a corrective action is forthcoming? At nine pages long, I felt a need to reset so as to not miss the official response. I've been known to miss a thing or two...

Unfortunately, this does nothing to help the computer player. While it's quite frustrating when it happens to your own guys - it becomes unplayable when it happens to the AI player. There's not much point in continuing to play when the only computer controlled troops not running 'cycles' are those in trenches and foxholes.

Correct. Will this thread be any different?

Demo related Release Again, not knowing the factors involved in determining evasion other than to note it is different from the calculation that takes place during the command phase. Hitting the Evade during the orders phase will only rarely place the waypoint in front and towards enemy contacts. During playback, a unit which would have shown a 'sensible' path back and away during the orders - will instead place this waypoint in a different spot. This is true for stationary units. For moving ones, you expect a deviation as they are in a different AS when it hits the fan... In CMBN, you can see this by reloading the orders phase, click the Evade to see the spot the 'problem' unit will take. It will most likely be sensible and away from known contacts at this point. Cancel the evade order and hit the red button to generate the turn. The unit in question will instead run forward as per the posts in this thread. The behaviour as first reported in the demo is what we have in CMSF2. We have an LTP (learn to play) for it and accept it as the new normal. It seems more prevalent in CMBN and I'm waiting to see if it too is intended to be the new normal.

In CMBN, it is common for infantry to evade towards enemy contacts and away from the designated friendly map edge. Whatever survives will then either evade back to their original position or slightly beside it. Should they need to evade again - this cycle is repeated. These 'laps' are frustrating when one considers the two plus year wait for a correction to a related matter involving units decamping fortified positions too easily. This 'problematic' pathfinding was reported first in CMSF2 whereby it was deemed there would not be a corrective patch. Instead it should be considered either a good war story or learn to play around it. Because the modern titles are more lethal - it is rare a team will survive and thus more easily ignored (no 'laps' are seen). 8 pages into this thread and I still don't know if it's a LTP (learn to play) moment and this is the new normal... It may be more apparent in the CMBN maps being first generation and not benefiting from the newer AI facilities nor the workaround regarding elevation unless updated in some manner. As I still have no idea what factors (other than elevation?) are considered when a unit decides to evade - there's no need for me to post further. I've yet to play a stock scenario where this didn't happen. We are 4+ weeks post patch so...

Are you saying the patch needs to be patched?

That must be it. I cycle through the force and it is only showing for the JTAC. The others show the generic contact instead. Thanks.

Vehicle first spotted a few minutes previously (WEGO turns). No one seems to have eyes on it... all friendlies shown below. No unit icon highlighted. Figured the Raven controlled by this JTAC Team spotted it. You see the TA (yellow), drone area (Blue), and artillery linear area (green line) of the JTAC Team. Usually, drone spotted contacts will highlight the icon of the drone controller which is the JTAC in this case. Can't see anyone else having spotted this particular vehicle. Is there a lag between the drone and drone controller in CMSF2? I've not ever noticed such a thing in CMBS.

Fifth, PROFIT This step is more difficult to gauge. I assume issues (aka BUGS/Enhancements/etc.) are triaged and somewhere a gnome is at work 24/7 doing "stuff". Every once in a while; an Elf will drop by and release said "stuff" to schmucks like me to ruin by nick-pick and general lack of appreciation for the effort - by blood, sweat, and tears that went into the making of "stuff". Case in point, elevation differences impact path finding causing reports of faulty entry when breaching walls/buildings/bocages/etc.. The workaround mitigating this, to a large extent, is too revise maps using the provided tool (aka Scenario Editor). Hardly worth the time of the gnome. I get that. DISCLAIMER: For illustration - a lot of WAG (Wild Ass Guess) as I really don't know the details... which could be the point of this post. Dunno. I'm not someone important (just a schmuck) and therefore don't know: 1) the workaround; 2) known issue - not on gnome's to-do list; or 3) gnome is working on it. Another class of case(s) involving TOE and/or Textures - whereby a few are reported over the titles and years; don't know: 1) if already reported; and 2) don't know if anyone cares enough to correct at this time. Finally, the 'problematic' evasion reported extensively which seems to be particular to CMBN. Is it supposed to be the new normal and not an issue to begin with? Save games provided - still have no idea if, or how, it will be addressed. At least, when it was reported for CMSF2 - we were told not to expect a corrective patch. This is good as now schmucks like me know that CMSF2 will on rare occasions do something silly. All fodder for a good war story and the reason we love these games (no snark). FWIW, I'm leery of tagging anything as a BUG. There have been more than a few issues that initially seemed off to me but, thanks to contributions from posters such as yourself and others, were either: 1) known - workaround exists ; 2) not a game breaker - no workaround; 3) learn to play; or 4) thanks - logged. I read the response from @ASL Veteran and now have a better idea as to how to proceed henceforth. You guys appreciate the visual cue - cool (no snark). I read the response from @IanL and accept that making issues more accessible is not an efficient use of resources at this time. Please understand that it is tedious to troll forum posts for issues that may have been known as far back as 2012 before posting what we think is novel or new. Just looking for a better way but accept 'it is what it is'.

Actually, that's exactly the bunker I was referring to in this thread. As Ian responded - another team, or two, covering the back door and within 30 seconds of small arms the defenders will evade. Sometimes a demo will be used but it's not required. A few grenades do the trick.

It happens everywhere. Wait till you notice the 'yo-yo' where units first break forward...only to break back...then break forward... back... KIA! Sometimes a slight deviation occurs and you can almost swear they are attempting to run laps. Thankfully, the overwhelming firepower in the modern titles allow us to ignore it by jumping directly to the KIA stage.

FWIW, I've not been able to play a scenario where I did not see this 'problematic' behaviour manifest. I don't bother posting further on this matter thinking there's enough already for the developer to action. My latest involved an ambush in woods leading to comical displacements from both sides towards respective enemy positions leading to another (IMHO) unwarranted turkey-shoot. Most of my casualties where caused when a lone team decided to decamp to a clear AS towards the ambushee. While the Axis side lost a platoon worth when they first evaded towards my positions and any survivors would then try to run back and away allowing me to continue firing at exposed troops. I do have another (different scenario) save involving a rush toward known firing positions from a stationary team positioned behind hedges (elevation 30) to an open/clear AS containing a single shell hole (elevation 30). Any survivors would then run back and away from enemy contacts. It seems to me that it's the generation of the initial evasion waypoint that is broken. I only say this because any survivors will then, usually, run back and away from known contacts. My stuff involves small arms and any HE a team (or squad) carries (grenades/demo/etc.). Some had reported similar 'problematic' evasions occurring with CMSF2. In the modern titles, it's over quickly and doesn't lead to several minutes worth of troops getting lit up and; therefore, more easily ignored.

The face command can do this without the draw back of preventing the unit from firing on surprise contacts. And it also wouldn't prevent them firing HE at (and/or suppressing) friendlies which tends to be my problem rather than incoming fire from an unknown position outside a TA. I also consider being spotted prematurely to the very worst thing that can happen. I don't need the team LMG to fire off at 500m when everyone can do so at 300m. The former reveals your position and rarely scores a knock-out while the latter will do both. I'm not against free fire. I simply prefer defined overlapping zones of fire. It's the those darn vehicles with their total disregard of dismounts that I blame! I hear you. I play it looser in the WWII titles. In the modern titles - too many things kill you.

I'm not sure if anyone has touched on this regarding TA usage but, along the points already raised, the following two come to mind: When contact is imminent and you want try getting the team an AS or two closer using Hunt to secure better cover. I shorten the TA to encourage this short movement. Otherwise, Quick/Fast is used when the need is more immediate (mandatory) and the position rather than the fire is wanted; Placing a TA upon reaching firing position not only to establish fire zones but to also and force a slight orientation within the AS to encourage better usage of cover. (I think a few have mentioned this.) Also, I'm getting the impression that no one actually adjusts TAs while on the move. I also use them as a trigger to reconsider intentions. A half-circle being acceptable early on when contacts haven't started to appear. Not so good when trying to commit force to gain fire superiority. Things tend to go well at that point when they are instead defined wedges or completely free. Of course, I'm skipping over the required usage of 20-30m circles when assaulting buildings to secure/police the area when we think it's been taken... Yes, TAs are limiters. Considering the lethality of modern weapons; I can't see how one can provide vehicular or heavy weapon teams support when friendly infantry is this soft. Hoping I didn't drift off topic much. I realize you are hashing out rules.

My approach was from the back with the teams never taking fire from the bunker. The biggest challenge was shrinking the TAs to minimize the risk of early fire as they neared. Once in position, the squad (3 teams) started shooting and tossing grenades. I was surprised by how quickly the defenders decided to decamp. The lone survivor surrendered the next turn. It was over in under 30s. I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with the patch. I was just curious as it went exceedingly well for a first encounter with a bunker under 4.01.